Parenting Practices and Child Behavior in Mexico: A Validation Study of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY

Christina Jane Robert

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILSOSPHY

Adviser: Elizabeth Wieling, PhD

APRIL 2009

© Christina J. Robert 2009

i

Acknowledgements

Completing such a lengthy and time-consuming project is never done in

isolation. Many people have helped me along this path and I would like to thank just a

few of them here.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my mother, Brenda J. Fisher, for her

unending support through all of my years of education (and there have been many). She

has never discouraged me from any educational pursuit and has always humored and

honored my many deviations from the traditional paths of academia. I thank her for her

patience, wise guidance, and tireless financial support. I know she is happy and proud

that this particular leg of my journey in life is successfully drawing to a close.

If it were not for Liz Wieling, this dissertation would never have been. She

welcomed me into her world from the first time I marched into her office and asked if

we could work together. I wholeheartedly thank her for taking the time to see me for

who I am and for valuing my potential. She has consistently supported me and offered

new opportunities for my professional growth and development as an international

researcher. She has also been a good friend and confidante.

In Mexico I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Aguilar and all of her supportive

staff at Centro de Investigación Familiar, AC. They opened their arms, their laptops,

and their filing cabinets when it was most needed and allowed me to complete a project

that would otherwise have been inconceivable.

ii

Along this journey there have been several other people without whom I would

not be where I am today. In this light I would like to thank Bill Doherty, in part for his

equally sarcastic sense of humor as well as for taking me onto his research project

before I was officially in the program; Kathy Rettig, for her close work with me on my

Special Paper; Cathy Schultz, for being an amazing support while I was learning to use

SPSS properly; and Roberta Daigle for all of her patience when I didn’t have correct

papers signed or submitted on time.

From the bottom of my heart, I want to warmly thank Paul Rosenblatt for the

“empty chair” in his office and for his generous gift of time. No matter how busy he has

been, he has never failed to remove his backpack from his chair and reach his hand out

with an open gesture as if to say “have a seat and tell me what’s on your mind.” I took

him up on this opportunity on many occasions and I always left his office feeling

enriched. He has always listened carefully and with an open mind to any and all of my

ramblings. I admire his spirit and have tried to bring his teachings and mentorship into

my personal life and into my professional world as a research, educator, and thinker.

Finally, I would like to honor the work of James Maddock and his devotion to

the Department of Family Social Science and the MFT program. He brought passion

and life to the courses and classrooms of McNeal Hall. Although he may not realize it,

he had a great impact on my development as a marriage and family therapist. I admire

him greatly and want to thank him for his devotion to the field as well as for his

kindness and patience with me over the past several years.

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my little daughter who will be born next month

in May of 2009. We are all anxiously awaiting her arrival. As I close the chapter of my

Ph.D. life, I will open a new one with the arrival of this little girl who will hopefully

follow in my footsteps in her own unique way.

I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my dear friend and companion,

Maddy. She has been with me throughout this whole process and has exhibited nothing

but patience and devotion. Although often a project in and of herself, her endless need

for exercise, love and attention kept me sane through many challenging times.

iv

Abstract

The present study is a validation study of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

(APQ) in a stratified sample in Monterrey, Mexico. A total of 862 sixth grade children

were targeted for the study. Their female caregivers (n=862) were administered the

APQ – Parent Report and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) – Parent Report as part

of a larger battery of tests. Measures of positive and negative parenting behaviors were

used to predict externalizing and internalizing behaviors of the children. Results show

that parenting behaviors of Mexican parents follow similar trends as those established in

a similar large scale study conducted in Australia. Results also demonstrate good

predictive validity of externalizing and internalizing behaviors in children using the

positive and negative parenting practices assessed using the APQ. Results include a

greater understanding of parenting behaviors in a large, diverse Mexican sample and

implications for future research and directions for intervention with Latinos/as living in

the U.S.

v

Table of Contents

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………. viii

Chapter I: Introduction……………………………………………………….. 1

Potential Significance to the Field……………………………………. 4

Theoretical Frameworks……………………………………………… 5

Cultural Biases……………………………………………………….. 13

Theoretical and Methodological Challenges…………………………. 14

Chapter II: Literature Review………………………………………………… 18

Latino/a Parenting Practices: A Focus on Values…………………….. 19

Harsh Parenting and Latino/a Communities………………………….. 23

Parenting Practices and Child Behavior………………………………. 25

Measuring Parenting Practices and Child Behavior………………….. 29

Summary…………………..…………………..……………………… 34

Chapter III: Methods…………………..…………………..………………….. 35

Overview of Epidemiological Study…………………..……………… 35

Staff and Training…………………..…………………..………….…. 46

Measurement…………………..…………………..………………….. 47

Procedure…………………..…………………..…………………..…. 50

Data Acquisition and Data Management……………………………... 52

Goals of the Current Research…………………..……………………. 54

vi

Data Analyses…………………..…………………………………….. 59

Chapter IV: Results…………………..…………………..…………………… 64

Demographics…………………..…………………..………………… 64

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire…………………..………………... 69

Child Behavior Checklist…………………..…………………..…….. 80

Chapter V : Discussion…………………..…………………..……………….. 90

Hypotheses…………………..…………………..……………………. 90

General Summary of Findings…………………..……………………. 95

Limitations of the Study…………………..…………………..………. 97

Strengths of the Study…………………..…………………..………… 98

Future Research…………………..…………………..……………….. 98

Clinical Implications…………………..…………………..………….. 101

Summary…………………………………..…………………..……… 102

References…………………..…………………..…………………..………… 104

Appendices…………………..…………………..…………………..………..

Appendix 1: Map of Mexico with Nuevo León highlighted………….. 115

Appendix 2: Detail Map of Nuevo León, Mexico……………………. 116

Appendix 3: Number of Students by Municipality and Percentage of

the Total School Population this Number Represents………………...

117

Appendix 4: Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parent Form. English

Translation from Spanish; Administered in the Present Study…….

119

vii

Appendix 5 : Original English-Version Alabama Parenting

Questionnaire, Parent Form…………..…………..…………………...

122

Appendix 6: Original Spanish-Version Alabama Parenting

Questionnaire, Parent Form…………..…………..……………….......

125

Appendix 7 : Summary of Factor Loadings for Five-Factor Solution

for the APQ on 4-Point Scale…………..…………..………………….

127

Appendix 8: Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form: Scale

Composition, Present Study…………..…………….…………………

130

Appendix 9: Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form:

Original Scale Composition..……..…………..……………………….

133

Appendix 10: Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18, Parent Report,

English Version………….…..…………..…………………………….

136

Appendix 11: Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18, Parent Report,

Spanish Translation…………..…………..…………..………………..

140

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Target Sample by SES Level (AGEB) …………..…………..……... 42

Table 2: Actual Sample by SES Level (AGEB) …………..…………..……... 42

Table 3: Mean Values for APQ by Gender in Current Study Compared to

Dadds, Maujean, & Fraser (2003)……………………………………………..

70

Table 4: Comparison of Factor Analysis of the APQ for Current Study

Compared to Shelton, Frick, & Wootton (1996) …………..…………..……..

75

Table 5: Internal Consistency of Items on the APQ Scales Using Cronbach’s

Alpha…………..…………..……...…………..…………..…….......................

77

Table 6: Mean Scores on APQ for Males and Females…………..…………... 78

Table 7: Partial Correlations between Subscales of the APQ………………… 79

Table 8: Raw Scores for Subscales of the CBCL Contributing to the

Externalizing and Internalizing Scales for Boys and Girls Ages 6-11;

Significance Levels for T-Tests Comparing Means by Gender…………..…...

82

Table 9: Correlations of CBCL Internalizing (Int) and Externalizing (Ext)

Scales to APQ Subscales for Males…………..…………..…….......................

84

Table 10: Correlations of CBCL Internalizing and Externalizing Scales to

APQ Subscales for Females…..……...………..…………..……...…………

86

Table 11: Regressions for APQ Subscales onto Internalizing and

Externalizing for Males…………..…………..……...…………..…………..

88

ix

Table 12: Regressions for APQ Subscales onto Internalizing and

Externalizing for Females………..…………..……...…………..…………...

89

1

Chapter I: Introduction

There is a large body of literature addressing the parenting practices of U.S.

immigrant communities. Factors related to immigration, such as acculturation and

assimilation (Chao & Kanatsu, 2008; Driscoll, Russell, & Crockett, 2008), income (Le &

Lambert, 2008; Roche, Ensminger, & Cherlin, 2007), and barriers to mental health

services (Bulcroft, Carmody, & Bulcroft, 1996), have also been studied to determine how

immigrant communities may differ from each other or from non-immigrant communities

in terms of parenting practices. However, what is known of parenting practices within the

countries of origin? How do Mexican parenting styles and practices differ from those of

parents in the U.S.? Are current measures of parenting practices useful with Mexican

populations? A better understanding of parenting practices in Mexico and whether or not

U.S.-developed measures of parenting practices are appropriate for use with Latino/a

communities may serve to help to create and provide culturally-specific programs that

address the needs of one of the largest growing immigrant population in the U.S.

The current research is an analysis of data from a large epidemiological study of

child maltreatment conducted in one of the wealthiest states of Mexico, Nuevo León,

located on the Texan border. Nuevo León’s capital city, Monterrey, is often considered

Mexico’s industrial capital and the most progressive state in leading and developing

social programs. Despite its status as the second largest and most affluent city in the

country, it is also home to a growing population of rural indigenous Mexicans living in

poverty.

2

In the present study, parenting practices of families in Nuevo León are examined

along with the relationship between harsh versus nurturing parenting practices and

externalizing and internalizing behaviors in children. In addition, the usefulness and

validity of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ), a measure of parenting practices

developed and tested in developed nations, such as the U.S., Germany and Australia will

be closely examined for its applicability with Mexican populations.

The reason for a focus on parenting practices in Mexico is twofold. First, it stems

from a desire to understand the parenting practices of Mexicans within their cultural

context of origin. Second, there is a need for a more comprehensive and in-depth

understanding of Mexican-American families and their parenting practices given that

they are the largest minority group in the U.S. This knowledge will serve to inform the

development of better and more culturally sensitive prevention and intervention programs

for families, particularly for those children at risk for behavior problems or for families

who may be involved with services like child protection.

The reason for looking to Mexico for such information is linked to the knowledge

that parenting practices are closely related to one’s social, cultural and economic

environment and that factors within this environment can serve as strong predictors of

disciplinary behaviors. For instance, harsh parenting is strongly associated with economic

variables such as overall well-being, stress, poverty, socioeconomic status (SES),

neighborhood environment, and social support (Barudy, 1998; Brodsky & DeVet, 2000;

Cicchetti & Toth, 1997; Conger, Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons, & Whitbeck, 1992;

Jackson, 2000; Kotchick & Forehand, 2002; Patterson & Capaldi, 1991). Families with

3

limited resources often find themselves living in adverse economic situations,

environmental risks, and limited family and social support, which increase the potential

risk for child maltreatment (Barudy, 1998; Brodsky & DeVet, 2000; Conger et al., 1992;

Jackson, 2000; Kirby & Fraser, 1997). Such adverse conditions also favor inadequate

parenting practices such as neglect, inconsistent parenting, punitive styles and

authoritarianism. Children, in turn, are at risk for the development of psychological

problems ranging from behavior problems (Eamon & Mulder, 2005) to serious criminal

conduct (Barudy, 1998; Shumow, Vandell, & Posner, 1998; Snyder, Cramer, Afrank, &

Patterson, 2005; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994).

As in other populations, harsh parenting practices and child abuse affect a large

number of children and adolescents in Mexico; however, despite state and societal

attention and enormous efforts to address this problem, changes in state and national

practices laws have been slow. There remains a lack of systematic research on prevalence

rates of abuse and parenting practices in Mexican populations, as well as a lack of

evidence-based research evaluating the effectiveness of prevention and intervention

programs. At the same time, cultural aspects of family life in Mexico can sanction abuse

as an accepted form of punishment and, consequently, child maltreatment has been

traditionally underreported in Mexico (Frias & Sales, 1997). Thus, one of the overarching

goals of the original study was to determine the prevalence and degrees to which various

forms of child maltreatment (i.e., physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, or sexual

abuse) are present in families in Nuevo León, Mexico.

4

Building on this, the overall purpose of the present study is to closely examine

parenting practices in Mexico with a goal of developing a better understanding of

Mexican parenting practices in regards to harsh, punitive and authoritative parenting;

nurturing parenting; and monitoring and supervision. A second goal is to closely assess

the usefulness of the APQ with Mexican caregivers. In part, the underlying focus of the

study is on Mexican values and how they directly translate into parenting behaviors.

Another layer involves understanding to what extent these various types of parenting

behaviors result in externalizing and internalizing behaviors in children. The study is

multifaceted in that it examines both the specific outcomes of parenting on child behavior

while maintaining a cultural perspective on parenting behaviors.

Potential Significance to the Field

In addition to providing much-needed data regarding maltreatment in Mexico, a

long-term objective of the epidemiological project conducted in Mexico is to obtain

current and reliable data with an ultimate goal of informing public policies and

formulating strategies for the prevention and treatment of child maltreatment in Mexico.

One specific goal is to develop evidence-based, state-supported interventions that will be

made available on a broad local scale throughout Nuevo León, if not nationwide.

Additional research projects are already underway and are dovetailing with the results

from the current study. Collaborative relationships have been formed with the University

of Minnesota; the Centro de Investigación Familiar, AC (CIFAC); and the Desarrollo

Integral de la Familia (DIF), which is equivalent to a national agency of Child Protective

Services.

5

As mental health issues have such tremendous economic implications in terms of

immigration to the U.S., this type of international, long-term collaboration between

Mexico and the U.S. will have a significant impact on Mexican families living on both

sides of the border. In the current collaboration, all invested parties seek a better

understanding of family violence and its impact on children’s mental health, and aim to

develop evidence-based preventive and clinical interventions and coping strategies that fit

the local and transnational cultures. The present study, with its close examination of

Latino/a parenting practices and how U.S.-developed measures of parenting practices

translate into use with a Mexican population, plays a small but important role in this

larger project by providing insight into how practitioners or researchers in the U.S. might

adapt or flexibly interpret measures of culturally influenced behaviors.

Theoretical Frameworks

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a conceptual framework based on the idea that realities

cannot be perceived simply through observation; rather, that realities are created through

relationship, language and social context (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998). According to the

social psychologist Gergen (1985), a key figure in this field of thought, “The terms in

which the world is understood are social artifacts, products of historically situated

interchanges among people,” and “the process of understanding…is the result of an

active, cooperative enterprise of persons in the relationship.” (p. 267). Hence, human

behaviors, as well as constructs such as gender, identity, parenthood, are products of

6

social relationships and are subject to change over time or from location to location;

through this process the concepts are continually socially constructed and re-constructed.

Feminist Theories

Third-wave feminists are the most recent players on the field of feminist thought

and theory, preceded first by the feminists of the 19th century suffragists and second by

the women’s liberationists of the 1960’s (De Reus, Few & Blume, 2005). The core of this

third generation of feminist thought and praxis revolves around the de-centering of

mainstream ideas and the re-centering of previously marginalized ideas and people.

Specifically, the third-wave feminist framework emphasizes that “aspects of self-identity

such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, and religion are

not fixed but dynamic,” (De Reus, 2005, p. 447) thus allowing one to embrace the

fluidity of such concepts and to view cultures and individuals through a less static and

less categorizing lens. In terms of practical application, Osmond & Thorne (1993), who

intentionally use the term feminist theories in the plural because of the diverse and at

times conflicting perspectives, state that feminist theories ask us to “step back and rethink

our assumptions, especially about issues of gender, power, and the very nature and

boundaries of ‘family”’ (p. 591).

Research through a Social Constructionist/Feminist Lens

Throughout the conceptualization and implementation of the present study, it was

crucial for me as a researcher to maintain a stance of open-mindedness and new learning

when it came to understanding the lives of Mexican families participating in the study.

By consciously bracketing my own Euro-American assumptions about parenting and

7

parenting behaviors, I was assuming the position of (a) a feminist theorist whose

assumptions and preconceived notions could be either challenged or redefined and (b) a

social constructionist who understands that such complex constructs as gender and

parenthood are socially constructed within a cultural framework. Specifically, while

designing the research questions and methods of analysis, it was important for me to be

continually aware of the fact that any preconceived notions I had about Mexican families

could be disproven, and that ultimately the data, and the participants themselves, would

serve as a guide in understanding the behaviors under study.

The goal of the present study is to understand parenting practices in Mexico. In

keeping with the tenets of feminist theories and social constructionism, it was crucial that

I was able to simultaneously hold multiple potential realities about gender and family:

How is the family constructed in this Mexican culture? Who does the parenting? How

and by whom are children disciplined? How are male and female children parented or

disciplined differently? What beliefs about parenting could be impacting parental

behaviors? Although the data being analyzed are solely from female caregivers, it was

nonetheless important to keep in mind the possibility of alternative family units, such as

extended family or older siblings parenting younger siblings. Despite the fact that all data

related to the aforementioned questions were not analyzed or discussed, these queries

nonetheless played an important role when interpreting the data and drawing conclusions

from the results.

In addition to the suspension or bracketing of preconceived notions, feminist

theories also maintain that “gender relations…be analyzed in specific sociocultural and

8

historical contexts…and should also include macrosociocultural contexts.” (Osmond and

Thorne, 1993, p. 593) This is also at the heart of the present research as the act of

parenting is not only to be understood at the observable behavioral level but is also being

interpreted through the defining elements of the culture within which the mothers,

grandmothers and children of this Mexican community live. This idea highlights the first

challenge of the study which was to culturally validate the use of an instrument

developed within Euro-American cultures. Simply translating the instruments and

interpreting the data based on Euro-American norms around parenting and discipline can

result in a failure to capture the complexities of history, culture, tradition, power, gender

relations, or gender norms. This also highlights the close examination of gender in the

analyses, as cultural mores within the Latino/a culture place great emphasis on male and

female gender roles both in childhood and adulthood.

In the present study, the close examination of beliefs and values around parenting,

as well as an in-depth analysis of the demographic characteristics of the sample, led to a

much richer contextual understanding of the participants in the study and therefore of the

data itself. The feminist lens remained in the forefront throughout the research, calling for

a continual examination of the participants’ sociocultural context, their cultural

upbringing and their daily lives. In turn, assumptions about family, parenting, and gender

were continually challenged and the social construction of such concepts examined.

9

Cultural Ecological Framework

The theoretical framework for viewing parenting behaviors and child behavior in

the present study is also conceptualized through an ecosystemic model of understanding

families, with culture being a central, overarching ecological system. In a literature

review of more than two decades of work on child abuse and maltreatment, Belsky

(1993) presents a “Developmental-Ecological” analysis of the etiology and treatment of

harsh parenting practices in families based on work by Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979).

Broffenbrenner emphasizes the importance of viewing human behavior within the context

of individual development throughout the lifespan and the interaction of an individual

with his or her external environment. Belsky applies Broffenbrenner’s theories to families

and demonstrates that child maltreatment has multiple etiologies including variables that

are historical, contemporaneous, situational, and that the individual attributes of parents

and children also play a major role. Because of the broader goal of addressing child

maltreatment in Mexico and the measure of harsh parenting using the APQ, such a model

served to explain the multiple environmental and individual-level factors that could

potentially contribute to harsh parenting practices.

Belsky’s developmental-ecological framework is appropriately applied to the

current study by examining the various ecological, cultural, and environmental factors

that intersect in such a way as influence parenting practices. On the societal level, cultural

norms, values and beliefs, as well as societal attitudes about family and children, directly

influence a parent’s behavior. A family’s relationship with the environment also depends

greatly on others’ beliefs about and treatment of an individual. For example, families

10

living in poverty or coming from ethnic groups that are less highly regarded in society

may also be treated differently than families of privilege. Hypothetically, stress levels

within the family system could change or rise as a result of many external environmental

variables such as overt or covert racism, living in a high-risk neighborhood, language

barriers, access to services or even compromised mental health.

On the individual level, factors related to the individual, such as temperament,

personality, or intelligence also influence the parent’s treatment of the child.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) model attempts to transcend identifying discrete variables

suggesting they are not mutually exclusive. In addition, he hypothesizes that punitive

forms of punishment should not be considered unique phenomena, emphasizing instead

that “these forms of maltreatment arise as a result of a transactional process involving

characteristics of parents, children and the multiple contexts in which they are

embedded” (p. 414).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems framework suggests that child

outcomes must be understood within the context of all ecosystemic levels including

parents’ behavior, socioeconomic status, physical environment, peers and educators. The

child’s experiences within these various realms also must be understood and studied in

order to best understand, predict and treat child outcomes. This framework provides an

analysis of the quality and consistency of the interactions among the various systems. In

the present study, identifying and understanding those variables that differentiate the

samples from U.S. Latino/a samples will provide a unique perspective on both U.S. and

Mexican samples.

11

Given that harsh parenting and even violence occurs on multiple levels (child,

spousal, community), this study utilizes an ecological, systemic paradigm that intersects

with multiple social and political levels of intervention. These levels range from the

micro level (individual and family interventions) to the macro level (policy level) and are

inclusive of a broader environmental context (family, community, culture, national,

international). Understanding child maltreatment within this broader context necessitates

an interdisciplinary approach that investigates family systems, school systems, political

systems, and a host of socio-cultural, economic, and historical dynamics that impact

families’ daily realities.

Although some ecological variables are similar for Latinos/as living in the U.S.

compared to those living in Mexico, there are certainly variables that are unique to those

families living in Nuevo León, including quality of life in northern Mexico, child labor

practices, high density living, and more entrenched cultural values such as machismo and

familism (Ingoldsby, 1991). There are even language and assimilation issues for some

people within Mexico, such as lower income indigenous families who have moved to

large, more urban areas and who may or may not be fluent in Spanish. However, for the

purposes of this study, the Latino/a culture as it relates to parenting practices can be

studied without the major cultural differences and stresses related to living in a

completely new environment in which one’s native tongue is not predominant and

potentially thousands of miles away from one’s home, family, and community.

Although it is likely that for families both in the U.S. and Mexico that are living

in poverty or above the poverty line, the likelihood of abject poverty, including limited

12

access to resources necessary for daily life (electricity, water, plumbing) is higher for the

Mexican sample (United Nations, 2002; World Bank, 2005). In addition, it is not unusual

for children in Mexico to be employed. Child labor is yet another ecological variable that

may look very different for Mexican children compared to U.S. samples. More

importantly, it is the integration of these variables into an ecological whole that

constitutes the unique nature of this study and which provides the theoretical basis of the

work. It is not simply the parenting beliefs that are being studied, nor is it economically

deprived compared to non-economically deprived, it is our understanding as primarily

privileged white U.S. researchers of Mexican’s parenting practices within the context of

their lives in Mexico and within the context of raising children in Mexico where the

cultural values are omnipresent in daily life untainted by influences coming from external

competing cultures, as is the case for Latinos/as living in the U.S.

Clearly, the current study, which is, in essence a study of Mexican families from a

U.S. perspective of mental health and child behavior, warrants a framework which

accounts for a deeper understanding of the multiple environmental factors in Mexico that

may lead to differences in U.S. versus Mexican parenting practices. By utilizing a

developmental and ecological framework, the potential for imposing preexisting

suppositions of U.S. cultural norms onto Mexican families is lessened. The theoretical

framework will thus serve as a guiding paradigm for conceptualizing the data analysis,

interpreting findings, and developing appropriate interventions for work with Mexican

communities both in the U.S. and in Mexico.

13

In order to begin the process of understanding which ecological factors potentially

could relate to parenting practices in the present sample, the next chapter will begin with

a detailed overview of research addressing parenting practices in Mexico. Before doing

so, however, I will first be transparent about my own position as a female, Euro-

American researcher studying and commenting on a culture different from my own as

well as the theoretical challenges of analyzing quantitative data through a

feminist/postmodern lens.

Cultural Biases

As a Euro-American woman living in the U.S., it is important that I highlight and

clarify my role and position as a researcher studying a sample of Latino/a families. As

mentioned previously, my academic training in a U.S. university has undoubtedly

contributed to my perception of the constructs being studied here. I have clear ideas about

parenting practices and about child behavior, all of which have been influenced by my

education, my ethnicity, as well as the culture of my own family. At the same time, my

awareness of these cultural biases is central to my willingness to attempt to bracket these

beliefs, to the extent that it is possible, and to allow myself to be open to alternative ways

of parenting and of behaving within one’s family. It is crucial that I attempt not to impose

my own values onto the Mexican culture and that I approach the research from a position

of re-learning. If possible, it is important that I allow the data to inform me about

Mexican parenting practices and not vice versa. Although I am not personally working

with the subjects who completed the assessments, it remains important that I am

14

respectful of the participants, their lives, their experiences and their choices, and that I

continue to be mindful of the context of their lives throughout this process.

On another level, the process of working with an international team of researchers

and clinicians to collect and analyze data has been a continual learning experience and

has proved to be both challenging and exciting. From my perspective, we have all been

engaged in an ongoing process of learning about cultural differences related to

professional research and academia. Personally, my own assumptions have been

challenged on multiple occasions and I presume that my partner researchers in Mexico

have also encountered cultural differences about how I work compared to what they

would culturally hold to be the norm in Mexico. The result is that I regularly examine my

biases and attempt to remain aware of how culture may be playing a role in some of the

difficulties or confusions that have arisen during the course of the project. At the same

time, working with an international team has strengthened our mutual work, in part

because we all bring unique qualities, skills, and cultural perspectives to the project and

because we continually strive to discuss and explore issues related to culture and to

challenge each other on our cultural assumptions and biases.

Theoretical and Methodological Challenges

In addition to positioning myself as a Euro-American conducting research within

a culture other than my own, I also found it necessary to explore my theoretical

perspective as a postmodernist/feminist thinker conducting quantitative research. This

intersection of postmodernism/feminism thinking and a quantitative paradigm posed its

own set of unique challenges. First and foremost, the two instruments used to measure

15

parenting behaviors and child outcomes were produced by Euro-American researchers

within a cultural setting that has its own set of biases and expectations around parent and

child behaviors. Although one of the instruments (CBCL) has been used extensively in

Spanish-speaking populations, it did not come without cultural issues (e.g., one could

question the cultural relevance of certain items to this Mexican population). The other

instrument (APQ) was being used for the first time with a Spanish-speaking population,

and although translated by Mexicans in Mexico, the relevance of the items to this sample

is also unstudied.

Although every effort was made to remain aware of cultural influences while

interpreting the data, caution must be exercised in approaching the data given that certain

cultural biases about parenting and child behavior may have influenced parent responses

or interpretation. Previous research has demonstrated that patterns of extreme responding

can occur in highly authoritarian or male-dominated cultures, such as Mexico (Johnson,

Kulesa, Lic, Cho and Shavitt, 2005) and that techniques traditionally used to eliminate

response bias, such as word order, can also be problematic when used with other cultures.

Additionally, there are many details about the participants’ lives that were not

examined within the current paradigm. For instance, the data do not address parents’

beliefs about parenting or underlying reasons why parents might engage in certain

behaviors. In turn, interpretations can only be as strong as the data collected. Given that

many questions could not be answered by the quantitative data collected, there are clearly

limitations regarding the interpretations that could be made. Furthermore, the analyses

and interpretations conducted in the current study fall recognizably within a

16

positivist/post-positivist paradigm and do not capture the complexities that one would

hope for when designing a study based on a postmodernist perspective.

This being said, it should be noted that the Mexican organization (CIFAC) that

designed the data and collected the data consisted entirely of a Mexican research group.

Consultation was made with researchers from the United States around instrument

choice, some of whom are of Mexican origin, and final decisions were made based on

best practices from a U.S. academic perspective. Given the scope of the research, the type

of data being sought, and the limited amount of time to devise and implement the study, a

complete cultural validation study of each instrument used would have been impossible.

Such instruments have not been developed within Mexico and therefore the Mexican

team defaulted to assessment tools from the U.S. In addition, the Mexican team chose to

use such instruments because they have been standardized and validated, which would

eventually lend credence and respect for their work on an international level.

Recognizing the potential problems related to using such instruments, this

Mexican research team is planning future studies that approach child maltreatment and

parenting practices from a more emic and ethnocentric perspective. This initial study was

funded by the state government of Nuevo León to collect quantitative and

epidemiological data and has been, in part, both a pilot study and a stepping stone to

obtain more extensive funding for in-depth research that addresses cultural and

demographic variables contributing to child maltreatment. As an outside researcher

observing the implementation of a first-time study for this group, and knowing the

group’s long-term goals, it was undeniably important for me to respect and understand

17

the decisions and choices made by the Mexican researchers regarding the use of

instruments and to understand the rationale behind these decisions.

Despite the limitations of the quantitative data and the fact that the information

collected was based on Euro-American definitions and understandings of the variables, I

chose to design and proceed with the current study and analysis. It is my personal belief

that valuable information was gathered and that equally valuable interpretations were

made, even in light of the cultural and methodological complexities. In approaching the

data, the most important factor for me was to maintain my feminist and postmodern

stance throughout the process of interpreting the findings and making recommendations.

By treating the data and the conclusions in this ethical manner, I was able to honor the

voices of the participants while openly recognizing the fact that my own cultural values

and beliefs were not entirely dismissible, nor was the paradigm in which the research was

conducted.

18

Chapter II: Literature Review

The primary goals of the current study are to better understand parenting practices

in Mexican families and to validate the use of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

(APQ) in the urban Spanish-speaking region of Monterrey, Mexico. As a first step in

understanding parenting behaviors in Mexico, it was necessary to examine what is known

about the cultural practices of parenting in Latino/a communities and to determine what

cultural beliefs or values guide the parenting of male and female children. To this end,

the first section of this literature review is focused on research that addresses parenting

behaviors of Latino/a families and, specifically, how these parenting practices relate to

cultural beliefs, values, and traditions. The question under investigation is how beliefs

such as machismo and familism translate into parenting practices such as punitive

punishment, nurturing, and reasoning. In addition, differences between how male and

female children are parented differently will be addressed. Because the study is

specifically focused on Latino/a families, and due to the enormity of literature regarding

parenting in general, this first part of the literature review focuses narrowly on those

studies that were specifically designed to study Latino/a families, either in the U.S. or in

Mexico. The goal is to understand the cultural practices of parenting within this

community, not to compare the nuanced parenting practices of Latinos/as to families

from diverse or mainstream cultures.

In the second half of this literature review, I will review the research that

specifically addresses what is already known about the APQ as well as how parenting

19

practices are related to the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) measures of externalizing

and internalizing behaviors.

Latino/a Parenting Practices: A Focus on Values

It is known that differences in parenting styles exist from culture to culture;

however, there is little broad-scale research examining parenting in the Latino/a

community. What is known is that Latino/a families, as compared to non-Hispanic

whites, demonstrate stronger family interconnectedness (Fontes, 2002), more public

discipline (see Fontes, 2002 for an overview of discipline behaviors in the Latino/a

community), and varying disciplinary practices with a tendency towards higher degrees

of authoritarianism (Zayas & Solari, 94) which can lead to corporal punishment (Zayas,

1992). Furthermore, the concept of familism, or the promotion of creating strong

extended kinship networks, has been indentified as a strong cultural value that impacts

parenting behaviors such as child maltreatment (Coohey, 2002).

Latin American countries are also thought to abide by an unspoken code of

behavior defined in part by the concept machismo (Guilamo-Ramos, Dittus, Jaccard,

Johansson, Bouris, & Acosta, 2007; Ingoldsby, 1991). Machismo can be thought of as a

“cluster of traits that includes aggression, dominance, authoritarianism, adherence to

strict sex roles and exhibitionistic and nonnurturant tendencies” (Deyoung & Zigler

(1994, p. 387). However it is defined, the term conjures up an image of a strong man with

traditional gender roles: the breadwinner, the disciplinarian, a man of strength and sexual

virility. However, the definition and expression of machismo differs from culture to

culture and may or may not be directly related to parenting behaviors. In addition, values

20

of machismo are generally thought to benefit primarily men, and therefore may not be

values that women hold in high regard; however, if socialized into a society in which

machismo is prevalent, women may also live by these beliefs.

In a unique cross cultural study of machismo and parenting behaviors, Deyoung

& Zigler’s (1994) conducted a comparative study of Guyanese immigrants and

Caucasians living in the U.S. The authors chose the Guyanese sample because of the

similarities to the Latino/a community in regard to strong adherence to sex roles and

because they were first generation immigrants and were thus less assimilated and

acculturated. In this study, the authors hypothesized that machista attitudes would be

positively correlated to more punitive and less nurturing child-rearing practices. The

authors also hypothesized that machismo would be more prevalent with men; however,

the findings indicated that these values, including a strong adherence to sexual roles, are

also present in mothers.

The findings indicated that mothers’ and fathers’ scores on a scale measuring

one’s adherence to traditional gender roles were positively correlated with punitive child

rearing practices in the Guyanese sample but not in the comparative Caucasian sample. It

is also notable that Caucasian mothers and fathers reported punishing male children more

harshly while Guyanese mothers and fathers reported punishing daughters more harshly.

In terms of understanding families coming from societies in where machismo is present,

this finding could be of particular relevance in the development of parenting programs for

Latino/a mothers and fathers. In the current study, a close examination of parenting

behaviors as they relate to boys versus girls is of particular interest. This research is in

21

keeping with other studies that show that Latinos/as provide more structure, rules, and

monitoring for girls than for boys (Bulcroft et al., 1996).

In Deyoung & Zigler’s (1994) findings, machismo scores were negatively

correlated with nurturing behaviors and positively correlated with acceptance of

promoting delinquency behaviors in children. In comparison to the other ethnic groups,

Latinos/as scored lower on the nurturance scale, and in a rating of vignettes in which

delinquent behaviors were being encouraged they rated this type of maltreatment as less

severe than the other groups. Women also scored significantly lower than men on

measures of machismo, which may be significant in this study as the sample is 100%

female. Again, looking at gender differences, machismo was predictive of physical

maltreatment by fathers but not by mothers. For Latina mothers, a history of childhood

abuse and neglect was a significant predictor of physical punishment with their children.

Interestingly, the study also predicted that the values of familism, machismo, and valuing

children would moderate the effects of parent’s childhood abuse and/or neglect.

However, no such moderating effects were found.

In a study of Euro-Americans, Latino/as and African-Americans, Ferrari (2002)

addresses the issue of defining parenting behaviors and abusive behaviors toward

children within a cultural context. She examined the constructs of familism, machismo,

and valuing children in relationship to parenting behaviors. The author’s goal was to

understand how these values interact with a parent’s own history of abuse and how the

interaction between parenting values and history of abuse might predict the parenting

behaviors they now engage in, specifically, those of physical punishment, verbal

22

punishment, and nurturing behaviors. Conclusions of the study address the concepts of

familism and machismo. The findings demonstrated that fathers who hold familism in

lower regard are more likely to physically punish their children. Additionally, high regard

for familism was correlated with lower levels of nurturing behaviors. The authors

hypothesized that families with higher regard for familism may be more likely to have

extended family caring for children (such as elders) and that the children are receiving

their nurturance from other people.

In a qualitative study of Puerto Rican and Dominican Republic mothers and

adolescents living in New York, authors Guilamo-Ramos et al. (2007) focus on the

community’s values of familism, respeto, personalismo, simpatía as they relate to the

parenting domains of demandingness and responsiveness. Their qualitative findings using

content analysis show that the Latino/a value of respeto directly relates to the high levels

of demandingness and control placed on children within this community. This includes

high levels of monitoring and supervision such as those behaviors studied in the current

study. Additionally, the expected outcome is that their children will conduct themselves

in socially appropriate ways within the Latino/a community. On the other side, high

levels of simpatía, (positive, smooth, interpersonal relations) correspond to high levels of

warmth and responsiveness. Guilamo-Ramos et al. (2007) also found that mothers

communicated differences in parenting male versus female children following the

“Latino cultural norms of male liberty and female submissiveness, that is, machismo and

marianismo” (p. 23). One parent was quoted as saying, “In relation to our culture, the

woman belongs to the home and the man belongs to the street” (p. 23). Males may be

23

raised with more freedom and less control because they must learn to survive on the

streets.

Again, the current study was designed to better understand parenting with the

context of a Latino/a value system. Therefore, while interpreting the findings of the APQ

we will refer back to the findings of those authors that have closely studied how Latino/a

values and beliefs may be influencing parenting behaviors and, in turn, how the results of

the APQ in Spanish-speaking cultures may differ from norms established in Euro-

American cultures. The study will therefore explore the manifestation of Mexican values

around parenting by measuring actual parenting behaviors in a sample of parents living in

Northern Mexico.

Most interesting is the assumption that these observed parenting behaviors may be

a direct reflection of the traditionally machista Mexican society. If the findings from

previously conducted research hold true, and can be applied to this Mexican sample, then

potential outcomes may reflect higher levels of permissiveness with males versus

females, higher levels of monitoring/supervision with female children, and potentially

higher levels of nurturing behaviors as well. The study is designed to elucidate parenting

behaviors and to draw conclusions about typical parenting practices in Mexicans as

viewed through a sociocultural lens.

Harsh Parenting and Latino/a Communities

One of the constructs studied in the APQ is corporal punishment. In fact, Latino/a

families have been shown to place a high value on structure and control and on harsh

disciplinary parenting techniques (Frias-Armenta, Sotomayor-Petterson, Corral-Verdugo,

24

& Castell-Ruiz, 2004). Frias-Armenta & McCloskey (1998) address this topic of harsh

parenting, a term borrowed from Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-In (1991), and

define it as “relentless and extreme forms of punishment delivered to children” which

“encompasses coercive parenting tactics from frequent use of corporal punishment…to

escalated physical abuse and cruelty” (p. 130). In Frias-Armenta & McCloskey’s (1998)

study, the authors explored determinants of Mexican mothers’ use of physical

punishment with their children. Physical punishment was explained primarily by the

parents’ authoritarian parenting style and effects of a family dysfunction variable, as

defined by the presence of interspousal violence and parents’ drug and alcohol use. Frias-

Armenta & McCloskey (1998) emphasize the role of physical punishment in the Mexican

culture and its relationship to values such as discipline and respect for parents.

Corral-Verdugo, Frias-Armenta, Romero, & Munoz (1995) addressed the idea of

beliefs and their relationship to behaviors, at first recognizing that beliefs do not always

translate into behaviors. However, the findings of their study confirm that high scores on

a measure of beliefs about the utilitarianism of physical punishment correspond to a

measure of abusive behavior towards children. The authors maintain that in Mexico

physical punishment is seen not only as a corrective behavior but also as a way of

producing good citizens. Other research supports the idea that positive beliefs about

punitive parenting practices lead to a more authoritarian parenting practices in the

Mexican community (Frias-Armenta et al., 2004). Additionally, women who have less

control over decisions within the family are more likely to engage in punitive parenting

practices (Frias-Armenta & McCloskey, 1998; Frias-Armenta et al., 2004), a finding

25

which has direct implications for families that adhere to the values of machismo and

marianismo. Harsh parenting practices are a cultural aspect of the Latino/a community,

and there is research to suggest that Mexican families holding positive beliefs about

punitive parenting are more likely to physically abuse (Corral-Verdugo et al., 1995).

Overall, this section of the literature review shows how coming from a Latino/a

culture may impact parenting practices. However, the measure of parenting practices

being examined in the current study, the APQ, was designed by researchers in a

predominantly Caucasian population and the majority of studies examining its

psychometric properties were also conducted in Euro-American cultures. Large scale

studies establishing norms on such instruments have not been conducted in Latino/a

communities. Thus, the purpose of the study is to further establish what is known about

parenting practices in one of the largest Latino/a countries and to use this as a framework

for the validation of the APQ.

Parenting Practices and Child Behavior

In establishing the external validity of the APQ with the CBCL, one of the

constructs being examined is the relationship between negative parenting practices, such

as corporal punishment, and child outcomes, such as externalizing behavior.

It is well-known that a relationship between parenting behavior and child

behavior, such as externalizing and internalizing behaviors, exists (Deater-Deckard &

Dodge, 1997). This relationship between parenting practices and child behavior was

established early on by the Oregon Social Learning Center (Patterson, Dishion, & Bank,

26

1984) and was in part the basis of the APQ (Frick, 1991; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,

1992) which reflects both positive and negative parenting practices.

The subscales of the APQ are reflected in research on these positive and negative

parenting practices which suggest a strong link to child outcomes. In a meta-analysis of

research studies examining parent behavior and child outcomes, parental monitoring and

supervision and measures of parental involvement were found to be the strongest

predictors of positive behavior (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986), a finding which has

continued to be empirically validated (Chamberlain, 2003) and utilized in intervention

programs (Chamberlain, Price, Leve, Laurent, Landsverk, & Reid, 2008). Discipline is

also a strong factor: the use of physical punishment as a correction for misbehavior can

increase the likelihood that a child will exhibit deviance or delinquency in adolescence

and adulthood (Straus, 1991; Fry, 1993), and inconsistent discipline has been linked to

disruptive child behavior (Capaldi, Chamberlain, & Patterson, 1997; Patterson et al.,

1984; Snyder et al., 2005). In a study focusing specifically on Latinos/as living in the

U.S., lower degrees of monitoring and supervision were shown to be associated with

higher levels of behavior problems in youth, particularly in high risk neighborhoods

(Roche et al., 2007). Externalizing behaviors have also been shown to be higher for

children whose parents exhibit a higher external locus of control, as may be evident

through inconsistent discipline or low levels of monitoring of children, particularly in the

Latino/a community (McCabe, Goehring, Yeh, & Lau, 2008).

A clear example of the relationship between parenting practices and child

behavior is evident in research looking at children with known disruptive behavior

27

problems, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD), or Oppositional

Defiance Disorder (ODD). It has been shown that these children are at a higher risk for

physical punishment (Ford, Racusin, Ellis, Daviss, Reiser, Fleischer, & Thomas, 2000)

and that parents of children with hyperactivity are also more likely to engage in negative,

punitive parenting practices as the children age (Cunningham & Boyle, 2002; Clerkin,

Marks, Policaro, Halperin, 2007; Roberts, 2001). Incorporating this into the cultural

context of the Latino/a setting, it has also been shown that a stance of greater machismo

in parenting can lead to a higher tolerance for delinquent behaviors (Deyoung & Zigler,

1994) and that ethno-cultural differences are found for physical punishment (Deater-

Deckard & Dodge, 1997). Thus, a more machista culture that values less control and

supervision over boys may result in higher risk for the development of behavior problems

among boys in that society. Children who are raised in families with high levels of

violence exhibit higher levels of distress in the form of internalizing and externalizing

behaviors (Grych, Jouriles, Swank, McDonald, & Norwood, 2000; Mathias, Mertin, &

Murray, 1995). Additionally, parents of children with behavior problems or externalizing

behaviors have been observed be more critical, to issue more demands and directives, and

to offer less praise (Roberts, 2001). Patterns of inconsistent discipline have also been

associated with behavioral disorders in children (Wells, Epstein, Hinshaw, Conners,

Klaric, & Abikoff et al., 2000).

Gender differences in externalizing behaviors have also been traditionally present

with boys reported to be exhibiting higher levels of antisocial or externalizing behaviors

(Lahey, Waldman, & McBurnett, 1999; Peterson, 2006) and clinical samples revealing

28

ratios of ADHD at a rate of 1:4 to 1:9 for boys to girls (APA, 2000). A recent study

resulted in mixed findings between males and females. No gender differences existed in

diagnoses within a small clinical sample; however, teachers reported higher externalizing

behaviors of boys in the classroom and parents reported no gender differences in

externalizing behaviors and higher levels of depression for girls (Fossum, Morch,

Handegard, Drugli, 2007). Peterson (2006) reported no gender differences for

internalizing behaviors. What is agreed upon is a need for more information regarding

current gender differences in externalizing and internalizing behaviors and factors

contributing to their development, particularly with young girls, as the focus of

developing behaviors problems has historically been on young boys.

Reasons for gender differences in externalizing behaviors may be related to

parenting practices, socialization, genetics, or reactions to environmental stressors

(Rutter, 1987). Research indicating significantly different parenting practices in parenting

male children versus female children is particularly relevant in regard to behavior

problems and peer pressures in highly stressed neighborhoods. Latino fathers reported

monitoring and disciplining female children more strictly than male children (Deyoung &

Zigler, 1994), a finding which could have adverse affects in regard to mediating the

effects of environmental influences.

The current study will also provide insight into parenting practices at a crucial age

(pre-adolescence), given that age is a factor in terms of how parents discipline their

children. Early adolescence appears to be a period of time during which children are

particularly vulnerable to engaging in antisocial behaviors. Parents of children with

29

hyperactivity and inattention are also more likely to engage in harsher parenting practices

as the child ages, perhaps due to ineffectiveness in reasoning as a way of disciplining

(Clerkin et al., 2007). In situations in which parents are highly stressed or living in a

stressful environment and children exhibit behavior problems, this confluence of

scenarios could potentially exacerbate harsh parenting practices thus creating a negative

feedback loop in terms of child behavior and punitive parenting.

Measuring Parenting Practices and Child Behavior

In order to better understand the link between parenting behaviors and child

outcomes, within the ecological cultural framework, a literature review of each measure

and how it relates to the study is provided. The measures to be used include the Alabama

Parenting Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist (Parent Report).

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ)

The APQ is a 42-item measure of parenting practices in school age children that

was developed and validated by Shelton, Frick, & Wootton (1996). The measure was

created in response to a need for a measure of parenting practices that specifically

assesses positive and negative parenting behaviors that have been shown to be correlated

with externalizing behaviors in children placing them at risk for juvenile delinquency,

conduct disorder, and other behavior problems of young adulthood (Dadds, Maujean, &

Fraser, 2003). Specifically, the APQ measures positive parenting practices, including

monitoring and supervising the activities of one’s child, and negative parenting practices,

which includes inconsistent discipline and harsh punishment. The items have been

grouped into five constructs based on face validity: (a) Parental Involvement (“you drive

30

your child to special activities”, (b) Positive Parenting (“you praise your child when she

does something well”), (c) Poor Monitoring/Supervision (“your child goes out without a

set time to be home”, (d) Inconsistent Discipline (the punishment you give your child

depends on your mood”, and (e) Corporal Punishment (“you spank your child with your

hand”). An additional seven items are included on the scale as Other Disciplinary

Practices (planned ignoring, time-out and contingent reward and loss of privileges).

These items are used as distracters to buffer the negative connotation of the Corporal

Punishment items.

Another study confirms this factor structure with slight modifications in scale

content (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006). In a study of hyperactive-inattentive and

control preschoolers designed to explore the psychometric properties of the APQ, the

authors show support for a three-factor solution: “Positive Parenting,

Negative/Inconsistent Parenting, and Punitive Parenting (Clerkin et al., 2007) based

partially on consistent evidence demonstrating that the Parental Involvement subscale and

Positive Parenting subscales are highly correlated and should ideally be placed on one

subscale (Shelton et al., 1996; Dadds et al., 2003). Elgar, Waschbusch, Dadds, &

Sigvaldason (2007) produced and also showed support for a three-factor structure using a

9-item scale with subscales including Positive Parenting, Inconsistent Discipline, and

Poor Supervision.

In order to investigate the psychometric properties of the APQ, a research study

was conducted in Brisbane, Australia, the third largest city in Australia (Dadds et al.,

2003) with the purpose of researching specific aspects of parenting behaviors associated

31

with children at risk for conduct problems. This study will serve as an important

comparison group for results of the APQ in the current Mexican sample because the

sample was recruited from children in a range of elementary schools such that it

represents a range of inner-city and suburban locations across levels of SES.

Furthermore, the large sample size of the study (n=775) allowed for the authors to

provide reliability and validity data for the APQ with a demonstration of good internal

consistency, validity and test-retest reliability. This is particularly important to the current

study as one of the goals is to further the body of research which demonstrates the

usability and salience of the APQ across cultures.

Dadds et al. (2003) established external validity of the APQ by correlating

subscales of the APQ with the Conduct Problems (CP) of the Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). The Parental Involvement subscale and Positive

Parenting subscales of the APQ were shown to be negatively correlated with the CP

subscale (r=-18, re=-18) and positively correlated with the Corporal Punishment (r=.24)

and the Poor Monitoring/Supervision (r=.19) subscales. Dadds et al. (2003) demonstrated

moderate to adequate internal consistency, convergent validity, and good test-retest

stability. Lower levels of internal reliability have been found for parental report of both

monitoring/supervision and corporal punishment subscales (Dadds et al., 2003; Shelton et

al., 1996)

In regard to child behavior and parenting, the AQP has been shown to be useful as

a tool for studying children with behavioral disorders. In the preschool version of the

APQ with controls and hyperactive-inattentive children (Clerkin et al., 2007), no

32

differences were found between the two groups. However, parents of controls did

demonstrate an increase in positive parenting techniques whereas the positive parenting

practices of hyperactive-inattentive children decreased over time (Clerkin et al., 2007).

This finding points to the importance of examining parenting practices based on the age

of the child and on specific disorders. Furthermore, the APQ has been shown to

differentiate parents of children with disruptive behavioral disorders from those without.

Furthermore, the inconsistent parenting, lack of supervision and harsh parenting, coupled

with a lack of rewarding behaviors, has been shown to be most predictive of child

externalizing problems (Dadds, 1995; Patterson et al., 1992).

Only one study utilizing the APQ with a Latino/a community was found using

PsychInfo and keywords Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) and

Latino/Hispanic/Spanish. This was a study examining parenting practices and high risk

sexual behavior in Latino/a adolescents (Nichols-Anderson, 2001). Other validations

studies were conducted either in Australia (Dadds et al., 2003; Elgar et al., 2007) or

Germany (Essau et al., 2006) and reported no Hispanic population. In general, other

validity studies or studies using the APQ studied a primarily Euro-American population

with some not reporting the complete ethnic breakdown (Shelton et al., 1996) or

reporting a low majority of Hispanic descent (Clerkin et al., 2007).

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)

The CBCL is a 113-item inventory that discriminates internalizing and

externalizing behaviors in children from non-clinic referred children (Achenbach, 1987,

1991). Total scores are computed for Social Competence, Behavior Problems,

33

Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, and Sex Problems in addition to scores

for 8 syndrome scales. In this study, externalizing and internalizing disorders will be

measured using the CBCL with the externalizing scale measuring aggression and

delinquency and the internalizing scale measuring anxiety, depression, withdrawal and

somatic symptoms. Research suggests that parenting behavior is related to externalizing

and internalizing behaviors. Frye & Garber (2005) demonstrated a direct relationship

between maternal criticism and externalizing and internalizing symptoms on the CBCL in

pre-adolescents and adolescents.

The CBCL has been widely used as a measure of child behavior and has

established strong psychometric properties (Achenbach, 1991) including within the

Latino/a community (Gross, Fodd, Young, Ridge, Cowell, Richardson, & Sivan, 2006).

For this reason, it was chosen as a reliable measure of child behavior and will be used in

the current study to measure externalizing and internalizing behaviors in children.

Analyses in the current study will test the predictive validity of the APQ by using the

subscales of the APQ to predict child outcomes as measured by the CBCL. In the current

literature review, no studies were found that used both the APQ and CBCL.

Summary

This battery of tests serves as an important springboard for understanding

parenting practices within the Mexican culture. Research shows that the APQ is a useful

tool for predicting behavior problems and the PSI has also been shown to provide crucial

information linking a parent’s stress to her behavior and, in turn, to her child’s behavior.

The CBCL is a widely-used measure used to assess the behavior of children. These three

34

instruments and the relationships that exist among them will serve as important indicators

in better understanding the parenting practices of Mexican families.

35

Chapter III: Methods

This chapter will consist of three main components: (a) an overview of the entire

study as conceptualized and conducted in the state of Nuevo León, Mexico; (b) an in-

depth description of the design, sample, data collection and management procedures of

the current study; and (c) a description of the analyses conducted.

Overview of Epidemiological Study

This study, conducted in Monterrey, Mexico, is entitled “Styles of Education and

Child Rearing in Nuevo León Families.” The study is a large epidemiological study of 6th

grade school children and their primary female caregivers in the state of Nuevo León,

Mexico. (See Appendix 1 for a map of Mexico with Nuevo León highlighted and

Appendix 2 for a detail map of Nuevo León.) The study was designed and implemented

by the Center for Family Research, A.C. (Centro de Investigación Familiar, A.C. or

“CIFAC”), which is a family treatment clinic and a clinical training and research

educational institution located in Monterrey, Mexico. The study was funded by the

Mexican Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protection Division in the

city of Monterrey, the capital of Nuevo León. In Spanish, this child protection

organization is known as the Sistema Estatal Para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia,

Nuevo León (DIF). The study was conducted with the collaborative efforts of DIF, the

Mexican State Ministry of Education (Office of the Secretary of Education) and the

Consejo Estatal de Población del Estado de Nuevo León (COESPO), a state organization

responsible for collecting and managing census data.

36

The larger epidemiological study was a cross-sectional study designed to measure

the prevalence, indicators and risk factors of child abuse (physical, sexual, emotional

abuse and neglect) in families residing in the state of Nuevo León, Mexico. It was carried

out in 170 public and private schools throughout the state of Nuevo León during the

school year 2006-2007. A sample of 938 mothers (or other identified female primary

caregivers) and their sixth grade children completed a battery of psychological

assessment tools which was designed to measure constructs related to abuse and

indicators related to abuse. Broadly, these concepts included parenting practices, socio-

demographic information (income, living conditions, education), parenting stress, child

behavior, history of family abuse or violence, chemical use and parenting behaviors.

The study was conceptualized and designed by the director of CIFAC, Dr.

Elizabeth Aguilar, in collaboration with other experts in the field of research related to

child abuse. Additionally, Dr. Aguilar solicited the support and financial assistance of the

Mexican Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protection. The Mexican

Office of the Secretary of Education participated by giving permission to conduct the

study in the schools and by providing access to school records. The assistance of state

demographers was solicited to gain access to demographic information that allowed for

the study to be generalized to all families living in Nuevo León.

Goals of the Study

The overarching goals of the current study were (a) to obtain information about

the prevalence and types of child maltreatment present in families living in the state of

Nuevo León including physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse and (b) to

37

gather data related to potential risk factors for abuse. To do this, the study was designed

such that comprehensive, epidemiological data would be gathered from a representative

sample of sixth graders and their respective female caregivers, in regard to predictors and

prevalence of child abuse. The final product would be a profile of families living in

Nuevo León that would allow service providers and policy makers to better understand

these families in regard to prevalence of child abuse and risk factors associated with child

abuse.

To meet the goals of such an epidemiological survey, the study was designed such

that a representative sample of sixth graders throughout Nuevo León would be selected

for data collection. The sample thus utilized demographic information to collect data

from a representative number of students across a representative sample of schools

throughout the state. This sample of schools included 170 public and private schools from

the 8 municipalities of the metropolitan zone of the city of Monterrey and from the 34

outlying municipalities of Nuevo León.

Áreas Geoestadísticas Básicas (Basic Geostatistical Areas)

The first concept crucial to understanding how a representative sample was

selected is the urban Áreas Geoestadísticas Básicas (Basic Geostatistical Areas) or

AGEB. The AGEB zones are distinct geographic regions which are defined in part by

settlements of people living in groups of 2,500 or greater (this number may be lower if

the settlement is a governmental head of a local municipality) and in part by

socioeconomic data and standards of living of the people living in the geographical area.

The AGEB geographical designations (or zones) are determined by using census data and

38

other regional and national demographic information gathered by governmental agencies

to divide each state within Mexico into regions which are given a quantitative rating of

SES. The SES designations are a) very low, b) low, c) average, d) high, and e) very high.

The geographical size of an AGEB usually ranges from 44.5 to 89 acres. AGEB zones

are not pre-determined geographically; rather, census data and patterns of community

growth and development determine the AGEBs from census to census. AGEBs are thus

subject to change as the demographics of the city and state change.

The most recent AGEB areas or zones were determined based on statistical data

received from the Mexican 2000 census (XII General Census of Population and

Dwelling, 2000). After the data were collected, the National Institute of Statistical

Geography and Data Processing (Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e

Informática or INEGI) managed the data using SCINCE2000 (System for the

Consultation of Census Data), a statistical software program used for both storage of the

national database and for analytical purposes. The software successfully interfaces

geographical data with statistical data related to demographic variables at the federal,

municipal, and local levels. After a statistical evaluation of the data, each state was

subdivided into a large number of geographical regions. Each region is determined based

on the social and economic standards of living of clusters of residents living in a given

region.

As mentioned, each AGEB is also assigned one of five SES levels. The SES level

of a region is determined by examining the living conditions of the families living in each

region. This is particularly true of Mexico as immigrant groups will settle around the

39

outskirts of large cities. Along these same lines, areas in which wealthier families live

often provide little to no affordable housing for lower income families. The divide is

quite visible and marked. In determining the AGEB of any given region, the following

variables are taken into consideration: level of education, living conditions, population

density, and employment. These variables in part attempt to assess the standard of living

of families based on the extent to which basic necessities are met. As part of the

determination, each individual household is assessed based on whether or not they have

running water, plumbing or indoor bathrooms, electric power, or dirt floors. Additionally,

the data include information regarding overcrowding (ratio of individuals to number of

rooms), income, education, and the general population density of the area in which the

family lives.

Sample Stratification

The overall sample of this study was determined based on the demographic data

available for the state of Nuevo León. The sample was selected such that it could be

generalized to all of Nuevo León. In order to obtain a stratified sample of the entire state,

population density and sociodemographic data (AGEB) were determined for each

municipality. A representative number of schools within each municipality were then

selected for participation in the study based on the AGEB designation for the schools,

ensuring that an appropriate number of schools and students were chosen such that they

fulfilled the need to represent a specific AGEB within the municipality. (See Appendix 3

for a list of municipalities, the number of students recruited from each municipality, and

what percentage of Nuevo León’s school population this number represents.)

40

In order to correctly assess how many families would be needed per municipality,

the population and AGEB regions of each municipality were determined. A stratified

number of families was determined first by AGEB and then by population density.

It was also necessary to know how many students were enrolled in each

municipality as well as the AGEB designation for each school throughout each

municipality. The target sample size was originally determined based on the registry of

79,744 sixth grade male and female students enrolled in 2,470 public and private

elementary schools throughout Nuevo León during the academic school year September

2006-June 2007. Students were recruited from the eight districts of Monterrey (n=197;

21%) as well as from all 34 outlying municipalities (n=741; 79%).

Sample Size

Of the 79,744 students in the 6th grade attending 2,470 elementary schools in

Nuevo León, a target sample size of 619 students was calculated using the following

formula:

Z�2 * p * q * N

n = -----------------------------

e2 (N-1) + Z�2 p * q

where n is the targeted sample size, N is the total number of students in Nuevo León

(79,744), p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population (.2),

Z�2 (1.96) is the value under the curve for a 95% confidence level, e is the desired level

of precision or sampling error (±3%) and q = 1 – p.

41

1.962 * (.2) (.8) 79,733

n = -----------------------------

3.142 (79,744-1) + 1.962 (.2) (.8)

n = 619

The formula was chosen for use with large populations and is intended to capture

a representative sample of Nuevo León in terms of SES (AGEB) and geographical region

in which families live. Of the 619 targeted, it was determined that 41.8% would be from

very low SES, 33.5 from low; 17.7% from high, 5.5% from average, and 1.6% from very

high, as found in the general population of Nuevo León. In addition to the targeted 619,

oversampling occurred in order to accurately represent the residents of Nuevo León in

terms of municipality and AGEB. In order to account for oversampling, a final number of

938 families were recruited from 170 elementary schools throughout Nuevo León. Each

municipality is represented in the sample and an appropriate number of students were

selected to account for the representation of AGEBs within each municipality.

See Table 1 for a breakdown of the number of students from each municipality.

Tables 1 and 2 show the target percentage of schools for the overall AGEB levels and the

achieved sample of schools with the same AGEB levels.

42

Table 1

Target Sample by SES Level (AGEB)

SES Designation (AGEB) Target Number of

Families

%

Very Low 258 41.8

Low 207 33.5

Average 110 17.7

High 34 5.5

Very High 10 1.6

619 100.00

Table 2

Actual Sample by SES Level (AGEB)

SES Designation (AGEB)

Number of Families

%

Very Low 233 24.84

Low 373 39.77

Average 141 15.03

High 183 19.51

Very High 8 0.85

Total 938 100.0

43

Support for the Study

The information needed for the stratification was obtained in part from the State

Council of Population for the State of Nuevo León (Consejo Estatal de Población del

Estado de Nuevo León; COESPO-2000), an organization which provides census and

AGEB data related to socioeconomic growth and development for the state. As part of its

support, the Office of the Secretary of Education arranged for CIFAC to have access to

COESPO-2000 for information related to the AGEB designations for municipalities in

Nuevo León. In cases in which state data were not complete, information was obtained

from the federal census and the National Council of Population (Consejo Nacional de

Población-2000; CONAPO-2000) with final results of the XII General Census of

Population and Dwelling, 2000. To assist with sample stratification, the Office of the

Secretary of Education supplied CIFAC with a database of information for all 2,470

elementary schools. The database with information about the school included registration

information for each student by grade, names, addresses, day or evening school,

municipality, and director of the school.

Through CONESPO-2000 and INEGI, CIFAC also gained access to the

SCINCE2000 data in order to determine the AGEB designation for each school in Nuevo

León. With this procedure we were able to identify the SES level for 61.4% of the 2470

schools (COESPO) in the state. Federal data from CONAPO-2005 were used for the

remaining 38.6% of the schools. The target sample for the study was then stratified across

AGEB levels and geographical regions.

44

In order to complete the study, it was necessary to have the support of the public

and private school systems, both of which are overseen by the Office of the Secretary of

Education. In order to gain such support, the Department of Health and Human Services,

Division of Child Welfare approached the Office of the Secretary of Education and

employed their assistance. After agreeing to participate in the study, the Office of the

Secretary of Education wrote letters to those schools in Nuevo León that were selected to

be in the study, requesting that the schools comply with any of CIFAC’s requests related

to the study. CIFAC then contacted the principal of each school informing the principal

how many students were needed from the school based on calculations performed

consistent with the stratification.

Sample Characteristics

The population included in the survey was originally comprised of a sample of

1,023 students and their respective caregivers. Of this original sample (n=1,023), data

from a small number of subjects (n=85) were eliminated because the caregiver did not

present for data collection. For the present analyses, from the 938 pairs of remaining

subjects, a total of 76 cases were eliminated because of incomplete data, leaving 862

cases (females = 447; males = 415) for data analysis. Incomplete data led to the

elimination of 14 families, and 19 were rejected because the respondent was determined

to be someone other than a primary caregiver (such as an older sibling, family friend,

etc.). The sample was comprised of students from both public schools (89%) and from

private schools (11%). This distribution is representative of the entire school population.

45

The male-female distribution of the sample differs slightly from the general

population, according to state data (INEGI and CONAPO). The proportion of girls in the

study is 3% greater than the overall female population, and the percentage of boys is 3%

smaller than the distribution of the male sixth graders in the state of Nuevo León.

Because of the considerable economic wealth and employment opportunities in

Nuevo León, as compared to much of the rest of Mexico, the state is comprised of a large

number of immigrants from other states. In order to examine the generalizability of the

current sample to the general population of Nuevo León, the mother’s place of birth was

acquired and was compared to state data indicating what percentage of the population

come from other areas of Mexico. Similar to the general population of the state of Nuevo

León, many families in the sample are originally from different states within Mexico (19

different states in total).

General demographics of the study will be presented here with a more in-depth

analysis presented in the results section of Chapter IV. Data from 862 sixth grade

children and their primary female caregivers (mother, grandmother) were analyzed

(mothers: n = 829; 96.2%, grandmothers: n = 24, 2.8%; missing: n = 9, 1.0%). The

sample of children consisted of 415 males (48.1%) and 447 females (51.9%). The female

caregiver’s mean age was 37.8 years (SD = 7.35, range 19-79 years) and the mean age of

the children was 11.74 years (SD = .636, range 10-15 years). The predominant religion

was Catholic (n = 703, 81.6%). The majority of the caregivers were married and living

together with their spouses (n=667; 77.4%). The majority of the women identified

themselves as housewives (n=622; 72.2%).

46

Staff and Training

Given the large scale of the study, a complete staff of interviewers, data entry

specialists, statisticians and coordinators were employed to conduct the study. The

principle investigator also worked with a group of expert research consultants to design

the study and with local psychologists to culturally adapt the measurement tools for use

with a Mexican population. A computer scientist from a local university designed the

database, supervised data collection, and performed preliminary analyses of the entire

dataset. The coordinator responsible for the study oversaw the construction of the

database, analysis of the results, and editing of a final report prepared for the Mexican

government.

In the development phase of the study a coordinator was employed to assist with

the implementation of the study. Another coordinator was employed to manage the

logistics related to the schools’ participation. This coordinator was responsible for

contacting the directors of schools and communicating with the school to ensure that an

appropriate number of students would be selected for the study. This coordinator was also

responsible for communicating with the families and soliciting participation. Another key

person was responsible for selecting interviewers, field supervisors, and data entry

personnel. All interviewers were either advanced students of psychology or social work

who had experience interviewing and administering psychological tests.

Assessors were trained through education and observation. First, the assessors

participated in an educational component in which they were informed about the purpose

of the study and how to maintain confidentiality. Next, the assessors participated in a

47

training in which they were instructed in how to administer the individual instruments.

An advanced student of psychology then observed the assessors administering the tests in

a mock interview and the assessors were given feedback on to how to improve their

interviewing skills.

Measurement

Cultural Validation

A broad assortment of standardized measurement instruments was used to

investigate the child prevalence and indicators of child maltreatment in Nuevo León with

assessment of both female caregivers and sixth grade children. A number of standardized

instruments were used (such as the Child Behavior Checklist) as well as other non-

standardized instruments (such as the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire). Given that

many of the instruments in the study had never been translated into Spanish nor had they

been used with Spanish-speaking populations, a number of steps were taken to ensure

cultural validity and appropriate translations.

The first step in this process was to identify if there were any existing versions of

the instruments in Spanish. Instruments that could not be found in Spanish were

translated by a member of CIFAC and back-translated by a proficient speaker of English.

Items that were identified as problematic were then re-translated into a version that fit the

local Spanish. The assessment protocols were distributed to eight graduate students in

marriage and family therapy in order to identify questions that presented difficulties by

their content and comprehension. In order to make further adaptations to the instruments,

48

the entire assessment protocol was then pilot tested on ten mothers and their sixth-grade

children.

Instruments

The original assessment protocol included multiple assessment tools. For the

current study, the following measures will be utilized in the analyses: (a) the Alabama

Parenting Questionnaire, (b) the Child Behavior Checklist-Parent Report, and (c) a

questionnaire of sociodemographic information.

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ).

The APQ (Frick, 1991) is a 42-item measure of parenting practices related to

disruptive behavior disorders in school-age children based on a demonstrated link

between parenting practices and disruptive child behavior. The measure was developed

with a five-point response scale: never, almost never, sometimes, often and always. The

current study employed a four-point response scale: never, sometimes, often and always.

Statistical transformations will be employed in order to estimate average based on a five-

point scale.

The measure was developed and validated by Shelton et al. (1996). The items

were grouped into five constructs based on face validity: (1) Parental Involvement (“You

drive your child to special activities”), (2) Positive Parenting (“You praise your child

when she does something well”), (3) Poor Monitoring/Supervision (“Your child goes out

without a set time to be home”), (4) Inconsistent Discipline (the punishment you give

your child depends on your mood”), and (5) Corporal Punishment (“You spank your

49

child with your hand”). Another study confirms this factor structure with slight

modifications in scale content (Essau et al., 2006).

No official or validated Spanish version of the APQ was available at the time of

this study. Translation of the APQ took place following the method of cultural validation

described previously.

Child Behavior Checklist (Ages 4-18) Parent Report (Achenbach, 1987, 1991).

The CBCL is a 113-item inventory. Total scores can be computed for Social

Competence, Behavior Problems, Internalizing Problems, Externalizing Problems, and

Sex Problems in addition to scores for the eight syndrome scales. The Internalizing

grouping includes the summation of three of the syndrome scales: Withdrawn/Depressed,

Somatic Complaints, and Anxious/Depressed. Syndrome scales of the Externalizing scale

include two of the syndrome scales: Rule-Breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behavior. A

three-point response format is used: 0 = not a problem, 1 = sometimes a problem, 2 =

often a problem. The measure requires a fifth-grade reading ability. T scores of less than

67 are considered to be in the normal range; 67-70 borderline clinical; above 70 clinic

range. Test-rest shows high reliability (.87 social competence; .89 behavior problems);

validity has been well-established for this measure (Achenbach, 1991).

A validated, translated Latino/a Spanish version of the CBCL was used in the

current study (Achenbach, 2001). No changes in the translation were made in preparation

for use with this Mexican population.

50

Procedure

This study was carried out in private and public schools of the eight

municipalities of the metropolitan zone, as well as throughout the additional 34

municipalities of Nuevo León. Approximately 11-13% of the schools included in the

sample were private schools and the remaining public. Two private schools originally

selected for the study were eliminated from the study prior to data collection because of

the staff’s refusal to follow the study protocol in regard to subject recruitment.

Both types of schools were randomly selected from suitable locations as

determined by the economic and geographical stratification process as well as by

selecting a representative number of public versus private. The principals of the selected

schools were then contacted by CIFAC, on behalf of the Office of the Secretary of

Education, in the form of a letter. This letter described the study, the role the school and

the teachers would play, and the fact that CIFAC would be contacting them. Principals

were subsequently contacted by phone from a CIFAC representative at which point the

study was described verbally. At this point in time, the principals were informed as to the

target number of students needed from their school for the study. The principal contacted

all sixth grade teachers at the school and informed the teacher about the study and the fact

that the teacher was to contact family members for participation. Teachers randomly

selected the target number of students from the attendance list and sent letters to the

students’ parents describing the study, asking for their participation, and making clear

that involvement was voluntary. Of an original sample of 1,000 approximately 20% of

the parents refused participation or sent an unsuitable replacement (sibling or other

51

family member). In cases where parents refused participation prior to the study, the next

child on the attendance list was selected for participation. The parents of this child were

contacted in the same method described previously. This method continued until the

target sample size for the classroom was reached.

In the letter sent to the parents by the teachers, parents were informed of the date

and time for participation in the study and were asked to come to the school for the

assessment at that time. Upon arrival, CIFAC assessors explained the study to the parents

and then obtained written informed consent from the parent and informed assent from the

child. Consent and assent forms were read out loud to the caregivers and children,

respectively. Both mothers and children signed the respective forms indicating assent and

consent.

Parents were advised that their identities would remain anonymous and that

participation was voluntary. Parents were also advised that assessors were legally

obligated to report any suspected case of child abuse. Subjects were informed that they

could discontinue participation at any time during the study. Due to the sensitive nature

of questions being asked, subjects were also offered psychological support if they

disclosed information or behaved in a way that indicated emotional suffering.

The parent and the sixth grade children were tested during school hours. The child

and the parent were tested in separate rooms within the school, in areas that were free

from interference or distraction. Testing with the sixth graders lasted an average of 40

minutes and testing with the mothers lasted around 50-55 minutes. Due to literacy issues,

all questions were read directly from the assessment packets and parents verbally

52

provided their responses. If the parent or child chose to skip a question, he or she was

entitled to do so. No compensation was provided for the caregivers; the children received

snacks and pens following testing.

The two study organizers and the assistant were responsible for the following

duties: a) assigning schools to the assessors; b) providing supplies to the testers; c)

monitoring the administration of the survey; d) supporting the supervisors; e) reviewing

and verifying answers; and f) detecting and correcting missing or unclear data. In cases

where there was doubt, the coordinators eliminated the subject due to incomplete or

inconsistent reporting. This served as a method of quality control for feedback to the

testers.

Data Acquisition and Data Management

The data were originally collected in Nuevo León by staff hired and trained by

CIFAC. Because the data were collected in Mexico and the database was set up by a

statistician living and working in Mexico, it was necessary for me to travel to Monterrey

to ascertain exactly how the data had been collected and how it was being managed. In

January 2008, I traveled to Monterrey, Mexico, for three weeks and met with the staff of

CIFAC to discuss the data collection processes and with the statistician to discuss the

details of the database. I learned how the data were collected, were entered, and what the

various demographic variables represented. I also oversaw an evaluation of the data,

select re-entry, and correction of errors.

Originally, all data were entered a single time by a team of undergraduate

psychology students at CIFAC. Although double data entry for the entire data set would

53

have been ideal, this was not feasible due to limited resources in Mexico and proximity to

the original data for graduate students in the U.S.

Error Rates in Data Entry

As a way of assessing and assuring quality of the data, however, I oversaw the

reentry of data for a select number of demographic questions and two randomly chosen

complete instruments: the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) and the University of California at

Los Angeles Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (UCLA-RI). The validity of

the dataset was thus determined in part by calculating the error rate of the initial data

entry. In order to assess the error rate, a team of psychology students in Monterrey was

hired, and data were reentered for 33% of the sample on the PSI and UCLA-RI. These

data were then compared to the original data entered.

A comparison of the entered and re-entered data sets was completed using Epi

Info, a U.S. Center for Disease Control public domain software package used to analyze

large data sets. Using this program, the error rates for the measures without any

corrections were .005 for the UCLA-RI and .0037 for the PSI. It was determined that on

the item level, the error rate was acceptable for all but two items: Question 33 from the

PSI and Questions 14a and 14b on the UCLA-RI. The reason for the high rate of error on

PSI Question 33 was due to its placement on the page of the assessment packet and the

error of 14a and 14b was due to the subjective nature of the question. Staff were

subsequently retrained on entering these data and errors were corrected for all subjects.

This analysis of the error rate in data entry illuminated the fact that the majority of

errors in the data occurred on questions that involved subjective decision making on the

54

part of the data entry person (e.g., participants responded with more than one answer).

There were few to no errors on portions of the questionnaires that involved

straightforward Likert Scale responses, forced choice or multiple choice items. Items that

involved a possibility of multiple responses, more complex instructions, or subjectivity

on the part of the assessor were more likely to involve high numbers of error in the data.

The sections of the instruments being evaluated in the current study (APQ, CBCL) did

not involve more complex forms of data collection and thus the expected error rate is

estimated to be below .003 percent.

Confidentiality and Data Management

No identifying information was collected from the parents with the exception of a

sub-group of mothers who gave permission on the consent form to be contacted if there

were a follow-up study (N=200). The information collected from these mothers is in no

way linked to the assessment information. Data was stored in an SPSS data file and all

analyses were run using SPSS 16.0.

Goals of the Current Research

The APQ has only been recently developed as a measure of parenting practices

and thus its use has been limited to primarily urban populations in industrialized nations.

In order to better understand parenting practices in Mexico, and as part of a cross-cultural

validation, it is crucial that norms be developed such that instruments such as the APQ

can be used to accurately represent the population in which it is being administered.

Although conducting such a comparison between population samples can have adverse

and problematic implications, if not conducted and interpreted with extreme caution,

55

understanding these types of parenting differences is crucial to further cross-cultural

applications of such measures. By comparing the outcomes transnationally, cultural

differences in parenting practices will be elucidated. Additionally, such a comparison

may lend itself to future research that more closely addresses cultural issues of validity or

for culturally adapting parenting interventions across populations.

The comparison of the current data to previously collected data in a large

Australian sample (Dadds et al., 2003) is a way of culturally validating the instrument

and of determining norms for an otherwise unstudied sample. The Australian sample will

serve as an appropriate comparison group because the sample is a similar size and was

stratified to represent a large urban area as in the current study.

The primary goal of the current study is to establish the validity of the APQ with a

Mexican population with the following research question: Does the APQ have similar

psychometric properties when used with a Mexican population as compared to its use in

U.S. and Australian populations?

The following is a description of each hypothesis associated with this goal, a

rationale for the hypothesis, and the proposed analyses to test the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1. The factor structure of the APQ will be similar to the original

structure determined by the authors and confirmed by subsequent analyses of the factor

structure.

Rationale. There is no evidence or rationale to suggest that the original structure

of the APQ should not apply to a Mexican population. Items measuring corporal

punishment should continue to group together regardless of the culture, as should items

56

measuring parental involvement in a child’s life. The one area that could potentially

affect the factor structure is interpretation of items within the Mexican culture. For

instance, an item such as #26 “You attend meetings at child’s school (PTA, conferences,

etc)” might not be culturally relevant. Even with culturally specific translations of the

items, these items may or may not apply to the daily life of a Mexican family. Any factor

loadings that do not coincide with the original structure should be closely examined at the

item level.

Analyses. A factor analysis using a principal component extraction with varimax

rotation with Kaiser Normalization will be conducted. A corresponding reliability

analysis examining the internal consistency of each subscale will also be run.

Hypothesis 2. Mexican samples will exhibit similar trends on the APQ in regards

to parenting practices. Specifically, a similar trend in means should exist for subscales of

the APQ as compared to means for Dadds et al. (2003). Given more traditional gender

roles in Mexico even in child rearing, higher elevations may occur for males than females

on subscales CP and PMS. Higher scores on PI and PP are expected for females than for

males. In comparison to the Australian sample, levels of CP may be higher in the

Mexican sample.

Rationale. Traditional Mexican values, such as machismo and marianismo, often

translate into specified gender roles and gender-specific parenting practices such as

higher levels of monitoring with girls than boys (Bulcroft et al., 1996). Additionally,

physical punishment may be more culturally a part of the Mexican community and

57

related to family structures in which women have less control over family decision (Frias

& McCloskey, 1998; Frias-Armenta et al., 2004).

Analysis. Means will be computed for each subscale and will be compared to

means for Dadds et al. (2003). Because the items were scored on different Likert scales, a

statistical comparison of means cannot be made. Additionally, t-tests will be run

comparing the means for males and females on each subscale.

Hypothesis 3. Correlations of the APQ should demonstrate that positive subscales

(Positive Parenting, Parental Involvement) correlate highly with each other and

negatively with negative subscales (Corporal Punishment, Poor Monitoring/Supervision,

Inconsistent Discipline). Likewise, negative subscales should correlate highly with each

other.

Rationale. Given the prediction of a similar factor structure and good validity of

items and subscales, correlations between positive and negative subscales would be

consistent with the expected findings.

Analysis. Partial correlations will be run on subscales of the APQ. Significance

for these correlations will be determined.

Hypothesis 4. In a measure of external predictive validity, positive subscales on

the APQ will correlate negatively with scores of externalizing and internalizing behaviors

on the CBCL and negative subscales on the APQ will correlate positively with scores of

externalizing and internalizing behaviors on the CBCL.

Rationale. Research shows that parenting behavior is correlated with externalizing

and internalizing behaviors on the CBCL (Frye & Garber, 2005). With established

58

validity of the subscales, the positive and negative subscales should accurately predict

externalizing and internalizing behaviors.

Analysis. Partial correlations will be run for each of the subscales of the APQ

(Parental Involvement, Positive Parenting, Poor Monitoring/Supervision) with two of the

broad scales of the CBCL (externalizing, internalizing) as well as with the symptom

scales that contribute to externalizing and internalizing (anxious/depressed,

withdrawn/depressed, rule breaking behavior, aggressive behavior, and somatic

complaints).

Hypothesis 5. Within the regression equations it is hypothesized that negative

parenting practices (Corporal Punishment, Poor Monitoring/Supervision, Inconsistent

Discipline) will predict higher levels of externalizing behaviors, particularly in boys. It is

hypothesized that Positive Parenting Practices (Parental Involvement, Positive Parenting)

will predict low levels of internalizing and externalizing behaviors, particularly in

females.

Rationale. Research shows that parenting behavior is correlated with externalizing

and internalizing behaviors on the CBCL (Frye & Garber, 2005). Studies of parenting

behaviors in the Latino/a community demonstrates that females are more strictly

controlled than males (Bulcroft et al., 1996) lending evidence to the hypothesis that

females will engage in fewer externalizing behaviors. Parental monitoring and

supervision and measures of parental involvement have been found to be the strongest

predictors of positive behavior (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986) and a lack of

59

monitoring and supervision to be associated with higher levels of behavior problems

(Roche et al., 2007).

Analysis. Regression analyses will be run using the subscales of the APQ as the

independent variables and the internalizing and externalizing subscales of the CBCL as

the dependent variables. Data for male children and for female children will be run

separately.

Data Analyses

All the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data was carried out using the

statistical software program SSPS 16.0 (originally, Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences). Due to the complexity of the instruments and the multiple variables, before

beginning data analysis, the data will be carefully reviewed to assure that there is a

normal distribution for all of the variables in order to prevent potential problems and to

determine if measures of central tendency and dispersion apply. Additionally, an analysis

will be carried out to establish the interaction between the factors of risk and the

psychological and social aspects presented in the specific objectives. The demographic

characteristics of the participants in the present study will be analyzed by age, sex,

religion, education, socioeconomic level, family composition, and occupation.

As far as can be determined, the APQ has never been tested on a Mexican

population (including indigenous and non-indigenous people). In order to determine the

applicability of this measure in a Mexican population, an exploratory factor analysis was

performed to determine if the factor structure previously determined and used by various

researchers was also applicable to the present Mexican sample (Essau et al., 2006).

60

Following the factor analysis, the internal reliability of the items within each factor was

tested to determine if homogenous constructs were being measured within each subscale.

In addition, the means of each subscale were compared to the means of a recently-

conducted validation study of the APQ (using the original factor structure) and

correlations were run for the original factor structure of the instrument as well.

Sample Descriptive Analysis

The first stage of data analysis includes an overview of demographic information

for the entire sample. Range, means, and standard deviations were obtained for all

demographic information relevant to the present study. Demographic variables include

caregiver’s age, average number of children per family, average monthly family income,

number of children/adults in the home, age of child, religion, AGEB (SES), education of

grandparents.

Factor Analysis

The goal of a factor analysis is to determine what individual items within an

instrument correlate with each other and if the observed items can be explained in terms

of a smaller number of factors that combine a group of items. In the present study, a

factor analysis using a principal component extraction with varimax rotation with Kaiser

Normalization was run using the statistical software program SPSS. This analysis

procedure is consistent with the approach taken by Essau et al. (2006) in a similar study

examining the factor structure of the APQ.

All items of the APQ were included in the analysis with the exception of items

34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42. These items were deliberately intended by the authors to be

61

separate from the other items. These questions exist only as a way to encourage parents to

answer other, more difficult questions about corporal punishment and are not part of the

analysis. Asking the corporal punishment in isolation from other questions about

discipline could lead to an implicit negative bias toward the corporal punishment items.

In the present study, an exploratory data analysis was performed to identify

underlying factors that account for correlations among the variables of the APQ. In a

factor analysis, factor retentions are typically based on an eigenvalue of at least 1.0. In

the present analysis, 11 factors were found with an eigenvalue of greater than 1.0.

However, because the factor structure for a preexisting analysis was being tested, the

number of factors was set to five for the analysis. In the following results, the internal

consistency of each item of the APQ will be discussed in terms of the factors onto which

the item loaded as will the clinical and cultural interpretability of the factors (Hinshaw et

al., 2000; Essau et al., 2006) and will be compared to the original factor structure of the

instrument (Frick, 1991).

In addition to examining the factor structure of the APQ, the original construction

of the APQ was evaluated by comparing the mean scores of the subscales in the present

sample and comparing the trends of these means to a comparison study (Dadds et al.,

2003). Partial correlations were run using a two-tailed test of significance both at the .01

and the .05 levels to compare the subscales to one another. In calculating both the means

and the correlations, items 28 and 29 were run using recoded data to best estimate how

the item was originally intended given that the items were administered differently than

originally written by the authors of the instrument (see Items 28 and 29 below).

62

CBCL Descriptives and T-Tests

In order to establish a baseline for the use of the CBCL in the present analysis,

descriptives of the CBCL were run and compared to the author’s nonreferred normative

samples (Achenbach, 1991). T-tests were run to determine if statistically significantly

differences existed between the normative samples and the current sample on all

subscales contributing to the externalizing/internalizing scales and on the

externalizing/internalizing subscales.

Correlations APQ/CBCL

Partial correlations were run for each of the subscales of the APQ (Parental

Involvement, Positive Parenting, Poor Monitoring/Supervision) with two of the

groupings on the CBCL (Externalizing, Internalizing) as well as with the symptom scales

that contribute to Externalizing (Rule Breaking Behavior and Aggressive Behavior) and

Internalizing(Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed and Somatic Complaints). The

purpose of this exploratory analysis is to determine the predictive validity of the APQ

with the APQ serving as a measure of parenting behaviors and the CBCL as a measure of

child behavior and child well-being.

Regression Analyses APQ/CBCL

Regression analyses were run using the subscales of the APQ as the independent

variables and the internalizing and externalizing subscales of the CBCL as the dependent

variables. Data for male children and for female children were run separately. The

purpose of this analysis is to determine the predictive validity of the APQ with the APQ

63

serving as a measure of parenting behaviors and the CBCL as a measure of child

behavior and child well-being.

64

Chapter IV: Results

Demographics

In addition, to general demographics, an in-depth analysis of family composition,

religion, ethnicity, income, education, and employment was performed in order to obtain

a complete understanding of the families participating in the study and the quality of life

in Monterrey, Mexico, and its surrounding areas.

The overwhelming majority were of Spanish versus recent indigenous descent,

with a minority of families indicating that an indigenous language was spoken at home

(n=15, 1.7%). School performance of the children was assessed using a composite grade

for the prior academic year. Students’ grades averaged 8.46 on a 10 point scale (SD = .89,

range 5.7-10.0). Consistent with the Mexican culture, the predominant religion of the

caregivers was Catholic (n = 703, 81.6%) with lower percentages of Christian (n = 46,

5.3%), Evangelical (n = 13, 1.5%), Baptist (n = 7, .8%), Jehovas Witness (n = 9, 1.0%),

other (n = 15, 1.7%); or no answer (n = 69, 8.0%).

The sample consisted primarily of married caregivers (n=667; 77.4%). A smaller

group were in long-term coupled relationships (civil union) but not legally married

(n=90; 10.4%). Smaller numbers were widowed (n=35; 2.9%), divorced (n=17; 2.0%), or

separated (n=34; 3.9%). A small minority were single and had never been married (n=28;

3.2%). A larger majority of families (n=554; 64.2%) lived in two-parent households with

no extended family. A large number of families (n=232; 26.9%) also lived with extended

family or in binuclear families. This is consistent with Mexican culture which often

includes family arrangements that involve older generations or extended family living

65

under the same roof. A small number reported living in one-parent households (n=65;

7.5%). Family size was relatively large with 26.7% (n=230) reporting a household with

2-4 people; 66.9% reporting a family size of 5-9; and 6.3% reporting 10 or more people

living under the same roof. An average of 5.69 people lived in the home (SD = 2.33,

range 2-27). Coupled with an average number of 2.26 sleeping rooms per household

(SD=.937), it seems reasonable to assume that the larger families were living in more

crowded living conditions.

Data on caregiver’s education were not gathered; however, education levels of the

child’s maternal grandmother and grandfather were gathered. Maternal grandfather’s

education ranged from no education (n=102, 11.85%) to university graduates (n=28;

3.2%). The majority did not progress past elementary school (n=677; 78.6%). Maternal

grandmother’s education was similar with education levels ranging from no education

(n=101, 11.7%) to university graduates (n=22; 2.6%). Again, the majority did not

progress past elementary school (n=712; 82.6%). State data for Nuevo León reflect that

the current generation of Mexicans has greatly improved in regards to education with

illiteracy occurring at a rate of 1.81% and a high school graduation rate of around 62%

(Aguilar & Odios, 2008). Approximately 32% go on to receive some sort of

postsecondary education, either at a technical training school or the university, and

approximately 10% of the total population will graduate with a university degree.

Although we are not able to confirm this with data collected directly from the sample,

these figures are likely representative of the current sample given the stratification of data

66

collection and the similarities of the sample to the general population in

sociodemographic regards.

To obtain an understanding of the sample’s financial situation, we assessed the

subjects’ perceptions of their own material wealth. Subjective questions were asked

regarding one’s perceptions of available funds for necessities and luxuries. Using this

subjective exploration of financial well-being, we found that a small majority of families

reported being able to afford basic necessities of life, such as food, medical treatment,

and utilities. For example, 61.6% (n=531) reported having sufficient money to afford

medical treatment; 10.2% reported never (n=88; 10.2%); 9.0% almost always (n=78); and

18.7% sometimes (n=161) able to afford medical treatment. This is in marked contrast to

questions addressing the affordability of less-basic necessity items such as household

items or free-time activities. Only 21.3% (n=184) of caregivers endorsed always being

able to afford free-time activities; 30.7% reported never (n=265); 8.0% reported almost

always (n=68); and 39.4% reported sometimes (n=340) able to afford free-time activities.

Additionally, we assessed monthly income. The mean family income of the

sample per month was 6,807 Mexican Pesos (SD = 7,793.67 pesos; range 0 – 80,000

pesos). Using an exchange rate of 1 peso = .08 USD (as of 12/1/08), this translates into

an average of $519.81/month (SD of $595.16; range of $0 – $6,109.20). Yearly, this

translates into an average of approximately $6,237.72 or 81,684 pesos per year (range 0 –

1,060,000 pesos) for the families in this sample. In 2002, the Mexico average annual

household income was reported to be approximately $9,302 or 116,275.0 pesos per year

(9,600 pesos per month) (Rodriguez-Flores & DeVaney, 2006).

67

In order to best understand the financial situation of these families, it is obviously

best to compare the sample to national averages and to determine what percentage of the

families fall below the poverty line. Although the data suggest that the present sample

falls below the national average of six years prior, it is difficult to compare the income of

this sample to national values due to the relative lack of a middle class, major differences

in the economy from region to region, and because of the vast salary disparities.

Additionally, the lack of national poverty levels and accessible nationwide income data

make this comparison challenging. One estimation of the poverty line for urban areas in

Mexico declares an income of less than 44.95 pesos/person/day as the cut-off for the

poverty line (Schreiner, 2006). This translates into approximately 1,348.50 pesos per

month or 16,182 pesos per year for one person with no stated adjustments for family size.

If these figures are doubled to assume a minimum family size of two, the monthly cut off

for poverty would be 2,697.00 pesos per month.

Assuming a national average of 116,00 pesos per year or approximately 9,600

pesos per month (and a sample average of 6,807 pesos per month) and a poverty cut-off

of 3,000 pesos per month, the sample was divided into three groups of income: low (0-

3000), medium (3,000 – 12,000), and high (more than 12,000). Using this breakdown,

24.5% of the sample fell below 3,000 pesos a month, or below the poverty line; 59.6 % of

the sample fell in the middle range of 3,000 – 12,000 pesos and 9% fell in the high

income range of earning more than 12,000 pesos per month. Data were missing for sixty

of the respondents in this sample. The data indicating a 25% rate of poverty is consistent

with the AGEB designation of “very low” obtained in the sample through the SES

68

stratification (see Table 2). In terms of child labor, a small percentage of children in the

sample worked full time (n=19; 2.2%) and a small percentage worked half time (n=69;

8%) with a total of 10% of the sixth graders sampled working. Given that the poverty rate

falls around 25% and child labor is not uncommon in Mexico, this figure may be an

underestimate of actual labor practices of children in Nuevo León.

In this sample, the majority of the women were housewives with 72.2% (n=622)

identifying as such. Of those employed, 12.8% worked various non-professional odd-jobs

(n=111), 6.8% (n=59) identified having a full-time position with benefits, and another

5.5% (n=47) identified having a permanent part-time position. Higher level professionals

accounted for 1.4% of the female sample (n=12; 1.4%). Less than one percent of the

sample (n=5) were students, one subject identified as being unemployed, two were

retired, and data from three participants were missing. In contrast to the women sampled,

the respondents’ male counterparts were mostly employed with 52.7% (n=454) holding

non-professional jobs. Another 30.3% (n=261) identified having full-time positions with

benefits, 12.8% (n=111) worked various non-professional odd-jobs, and 1.9% (n=16)

identified having a permanent part-time position. A small percentage (n=27; 3.1%) were

higher level professionals. Less than 1% (n=5) were students and 2.1% (n=18) identified

as being unemployed. Five respondents were retired and data were missing for 80 of the

respondents. The identified pattern of men working while women attend to household

tasks is consistent with the Mexican culture.

69

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire

The main purpose of the present analysis of the APQ was to establish the

psychometric properties of the instrument when administered in a Mexican sample. Using

a factor analysis and other descriptive analyses, the differences between the original

study and the findings of the current study can take place. The questionnaire, as it was

administered in the present study, and the original version of the APQ (Frick, 1991) are

included in Appendices 4 and 5, respectively. A Spanish translation of the APQ used in

the present study is included in Appendix 6.

The following analysis includes a discussion of each of the five original factors

and how the present findings compare to the original factor structure of the instrument.

The complete data set of factor loadings for the present study can be viewed in Appendix

7. Variables that correlate highly with each other have been grouped by factor. The scale

composition, as determined by the current factor analysis conducted in the present study,

is visible in Appendix 8 and the original factor structure (Frick, 1991) is in Appendix 9.

Mean Values

As stated earlier, the present study administered the APQ on a 4-point scale rather

than a 5-point scale. This fact, and the lack of comprehensive data on the APQ, makes a

direct comparison to other studies difficult. Despite this, a general comparison of APQ

mean values for the present study and a recent validation study (Dadds et al., 2003) is

presented in Table 3.

70

Table 3

Mean Values for the APQ by Gender in Current Study Compared to Dadds, Maujean, &

Fraser (2003)

APQ Subscale

Current Study

Dadds et al. (2003)

Male

(n=415)

Female (n=447)

Male

(n=168)

Female (n=148)

M

(SD)

Parental Involvement 27.54

(4.97)

28.47

(5.05)

40.42

(4.43)

40.67

(4.13)

Poor Monitoring/

Supervision

14.02

(2.96)

13.00

(2.55)

12.28

(3.36)

12.40

(2.89)

Positive Parenting 17.17

(3.51)

17.73

(3.38)

25.67

(2.64)

25.94

(2.66)

Inconsistent Discipline 10.87

(3.17)

10.35

(2.87)

13.90

(3.30)

13.97

(3.92)

Corporal Punishment 3.77

(1.08)

3.57

(.958)

5.58

(1.62)

5.34

(1.53)

71

Although actual values cannot be directly compared, it still remains useful to

present the upward and downward trends of the values. For instance, the highest mean

scores for both the present study (27.54 male; 28.47 female) and the comparison study

(40.42 male; 40.67 female) are on the Parental Involvement subscale. Likewise, the

lowest values appear for both studies in Corporal Punishment (present study: 3.77 male;

3.57 female; comparison study: 5.58 male; 5.34 female). Positive Parenting and

Inconsistent Discipline maintain this same pattern of lower scores in the present study

and somewhat higher scores for the comparison study.

On the other hand, there is one major difference which should be mentioned. On

one subscale (Poor Monitoring/ Supervision), the scores are somewhat higher in the

Mexican study than in the comparison study. This is particularly striking because scores

should theoretically be higher in the Dadds et al. (2003) study simply because of the

larger point possibility. This demonstrates a potentially very large and significant

difference in mean scores for the Mexican sample compared to other populations on this

subscale. It is uncertain if this difference is related to the reverse coded items of 28 and

29.

Factor Analysis

As a second step in understanding the psychometric properties of the APQ, a

factor analysis was conducted and the results compared to the author’s original

constellation of this measure (Frick, 1991). Before conducting a complete discussion of

the findings, two areas of the measure should be discussed.

72

Items 28 and 29. Items 28 and 29 were changed for use in the current study. The

original item 28 originally read: “You don’t check that your child comes home when

he/she was supposed to.” However, in the present study, the item was administered in the

positive form of the question, i.e. “You DO check that your child comes home when

he/she is supposed to.” Along these same lines, item 29 originally read “You don’t tell

your child where you are going.” In this Mexican sample, it was administered as “You

DO tell your child where you are going.” This change came about as a result of the pilot

testing period in which a group of mothers were administered the instruments and the

assessors gave feedback regarding the process. During this trial period it was noted that

the mothers had difficulties understanding the Spanish translation of the original version

of the question. Therefore, the negation of the question was excluded and the question

asked as a positive in order to facilitate comprehension.

When the analysis was run using the positive form of the item (as was

administered here), the two variables loaded appropriately onto Parental Involvement.

When reverse coded, the sign of the value changed but the factor loading did not change.

Therefore, the reverse coding does not lend insight into how these items might have

loaded if presented in the original from, as intended by the authors. One would expect

these items to load onto Poor Monitoring/Supervision.

Other Discipline Practices. Asking parents difficult questions about corporal

punishment can lead to responses that are considered socially desirable. In order to ease

parents into answering difficult questions about parenting practices, the authors of the

instrument created a set of questions that fall under the category of “Other Disciplinary

73

Practices.” These items are not part of the analysis and thus their statistical properties are

not relevant to the study.

A discussion of each component (and corresponding subscale per Shelton et al.

(1996) is presented below, followed by a table summarizing the findings (Table 4).

Components 1 and 2: Parental Involvement and Positive Parenting. Results for

Components 1 and 2 will be examined together. The reason for this is that the

components are very similar and often researchers have found there to be little

discriminant validity between the two factors (Shelton et al., 1996).

In the present study items 1, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 27 all loaded onto

Parental Involvement with values of .4 or higher (except factor 3 which loaded at .3 or

higher). Items 7, 5, 11, 14, 15 loaded onto a similar component, Positive Parenting. When

looking at the two factors combined, all of these items are the same items that loaded

onto the same two factors in Shelton et al.’s (1996) study. The one major difference is

that 13, 16, 18, and 27, which are grouped into the Positive Parenting subscale in Shelton

et al.’s (1996) study, loaded onto Parental Involvement in the present study. Conversely,

items 11, 14, and 15, which loaded onto Parental Involvement in Shelton et al.’s study,

loaded onto Positive Parenting in the present study. This is not a significant divergence as

even the original studies of the APQ (Shelton et al., 1996) identified these two subscales

as having significant overlap and were shown to be measuring very similar constructs.

Thus, several items tend to load onto both the Parental Involvement and the Positive

Parenting subscales.

74

Component 3: Poor Monitoring/Supervision. In the present study 6, 10, 12, 17,

19, 21, 24, 30 all loaded onto the Poor Monitoring/Supervision factor with values of .4 or

higher. In the original construction, items 6, 10, 17, 19, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, and 32 loaded

onto this same subscale. Item 12 (“Getting your child to obey you is more trouble than

it’s worth”) loaded onto a subscale different from the original construction: Inconsistent

Discipline. Item 32 (“Your child is at home without adult supervision”) was originally

grouped with Poor Monitoring/Supervision but appears in Corporal Punishment in the

present study.

Component 4: Inconsistent Discipline. In the present study, items 3, 8, 22, 25, and

31 all loaded onto this factor with values of .4 or higher. With the exception of item 12

(“Getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth”), which loaded onto

Poor Monitoring/Supervision, these variables are identical to those variables in the

original construction of the APQ.

Component 5: Corporal Punishment. In the present study items 32, 33, 35, 38 all

loaded onto the factor termed Corporal Punishment with values of .4 or higher. Item 32

which loaded on this factor but was shown to load on Monitoring/Supervision for Shelton

et al.’s (1996) study: “Your child is at home without adult supervision.”

75

Table 4

Comparison of Factor Analysis of the APQ for Current Study Compared to Shelton,

Frick, & Wootton (1996)

Factor

Shelton et al.

(1996)

Current Study

Differences

I. Parental Involvement

1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14,

15, 20, 23, 26

1, 2, 4, 7, 9,

13, 16, 18, 20,

23, 26, and 27

11, 14, 15 are in

Positive Parenting

II. Positive Parenting 2, 5, 13, 16, 18, 27 5, 11, 14, 15 2, 13, 16, 18, 27 in

Parental

Involvement

III. Poor Monitoring/

Supervision

6, 10, 17, 19, 21,

24, 28, 29, 30, 32

6, 10, 12, 17,

19, 21, 24, 30

28 & 29 missing*

32 in Corporal

Punishment

IV. Inconsistent

Discipline

3, 8, 12, 22, 25, 31 3, 8, 22, 25,31 12 in Poor

Monitoring/

Supervision

V. Corporal Punishment 33, 35, 38 32, 33, 35, 38

*See previous discussion of statistical complications with items 28 and 29.

76

Reliability of APQ Scores

Factor 1, Parental Involvement, demonstrated good internal consistency with a

Cronbach’s alpha of .848. Factor 3, Poor Monitoring/Supervision showed high moderate

internal consistent with an alpha of .629. Factors 2 and 4, Positive Parenting and

Inconsistent Discipline, respectively, showed moderate internal consistency with an alpha

of .545 on subscale 2 and an alpha of .557 on subscale 4. Subscale 5, Corporal

Punishment, showed the lowest degree of internal consistency with an alpha of .408. On

this scale, removal of the item “Your child is at home without adult supervision” would

increase the Cronbach’s alpha from a .413 to a .448. This is the only item of the five

subscales wherein removal of an item would result in an increase in the alpha coefficient.

One rule of thumb for interpreting Cronbach’s alpha (George & Mallery, 2003) in

experimental research uses the following guidelines: .9 or > excellent; .8 or > good; .7 or

> acceptable; .6 or > Questionable; .5 or > Poor, and <.5 unacceptable. According to

these guidelines the only strong outcome for internal consistency is Factor 1 (Parental

Involvement). Factor 3 (Poor Monitoring/Supervision) would be considered questionable;

Factors 2 and 3 (Positive Parenting and Poor Monitoring/Supervision) poor and Factor 5

(Corporal Punishment) unacceptable. It should be also noted the greater the number of

items the greater Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 5). In the present analysis, the factors with

the least number of items are Corporal Punishment and Positive Parenting. Both of these

resulted in reliability scores that fell on the lower end of the spectrum; the number of

items may be a factor in this outcome.

77

Table 5

Internal Consistency of Items on the APQ Scales using Cronbach’s Alpha

Factor

APQ Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha

Number of

Items

Rating

1 Parental Involvement .848 12 Good

2 Positive Parenting .545 4 Poor

3 Poor Monitoring/Supervision .629 8 Questionable

4 Inconsistent Discipline .557 5 Poor

5 Corporal Punishment .408 4 Poor

Mean Scores APQ

The differences in means for all subscales among gender on the APQ within the

sample were significant with particularly significant differences existing for Positive

Parenting and Inconsistent Discipline (see Table 6 for t values and significance levels).

Scores on Positive Parenting were significantly higher for girls than for boys.

Interestingly, scores were higher on all three negative subscales for males: Boys received

more corporal punishment than girls; more inconsistent discipline; and less monitoring

and supervision from their parents. Similarly, on the second positive subscale, Parental

Involvement, scores were higher for females than for males but not at a significant level.

78

Table 6 Mean Scores and T Values on APQ for Males and Females

Males

(N=415)

Females (N=447)

APQ Subscales

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

Positive Parenting

17.17

3.51

17.73

3.38

-2.42*

Parental Involvement

27.54

4.97

28.47

5.05

.-2.72**

Corporal Punishment

3.77

1.08

3.57

.96

2.90**

Inconsistent Discipline

10.87

3.17

10.35

2.87

2.53*

Poor Monitor Supervision

14.02

2.97

13.00

2.55

0.54**

*p<.05, **p<.01

79

Correlations: Internal Validity

Correlations were run on the subscales of the APQ as a way of assessing

convergent and divergent validity. In general, low positive correlations were expected to

occur between the two “positive” subscales (Positive Parenting, Parental Involvement)

and, likewise, low but significant positive correlations among the negative subscales

(Poor Monitoring/Supervision, Corporal Punishment, Inconsistent Discipline). Indeed, as

with past studies (Shelton et al., 1996; Dadds et al., 2003), the results of the present

showed that the positive subscales were very highly correlated with each other (r=.7088,

p<.01) suggesting a significant amount of overlap between these two subscales (see Table

7). In terms of the negative subscales, the results showed good divergent validity, with

low but positive correlations. These findings are similar to those of Dadds et al. (2003).

Table 7 Partial Correlations among Subscales of the APQ

PP CP IN PMS ID

Positive Parenting ----- -.1160** .7088** -.2852** -.0435

Corporal Punishment ---- -.1177** .2349** .2969**

Parental Involvement ----- -.3117** -.0502

Poor Monitoring/ Supervision ---- .3981**

Inconsistent Discipline ----

*p<.05, **p<.01

80

Ideally, low negative correlations should occur between the negative and positive

subscales at significant levels. In the present study, the correlation results for negative to

positive items demonstrated good divergent validity in three of the relationships (Positive

Parenting to Corporal Punishment: r = -.116, p<.01; Poor Monitoring/Supervision to

Positive Parenting: r = -.285, p<.01; Parental Involvement to Poor

Monitoring/Supervision: -.312, p<.01). Moderate relationships that did not reach

significance existed for two relationships (Inconsistent Discipline to Positive Parenting: r

= -.044, ns; Inconsistent Discipline to Parental Involvement: r = -.050, ns). Overall, the

low but significant negative correlations still indicate good divergent validity despite the

lack of statistical significance, with evidence based on the negative direction of the

correlation.

Child Behavior Checklist

As another way of testing the external validity, and specifically the predictive

validity of the APQ, the strength of the relationship between parenting practices (as

measured by the APQ) and child behavior (as measured by the CBCL in the form of the

externalizing and internalizing behaviors) was determined. Appendix 10 includes an

English version of the CBCL which is identical to that administered in the present study

with the exception of language. A Spanish version of the CBCL is included in Appendix

11.

In order to gain an overall view of how the current sample scored on the

individual subscales of the CBCL contributing to the Externalizing and Internalizing

groupings, a descriptive analysis of means for all subscales related to the Externalizing

81

and Internalizing groupings was run. Results demonstrated that scores between males and

females differ significantly only on one subscale, Rule-Breaking Behavior, with males

scoring significantly higher than females. In correspondence with this finding,

Externalizing was also significantly higher for males than females. The male children

scored higher on the other subscale contributing to Externalizing, Aggressive Behavior,

but not significantly so. The female children scored higher than males on all three

internalizing subscales, but again, not a level of statistical significance (see Table 8).

82

Table 8

Raw Scores for Subscales of the CBCL Contributing to the Externalizing and

Internalizing Scales for Boys and Girls Ages 6-11; Significance Levels for T-Tests

Comparing Means by Gender

Male

(N=415)

Female

(N=447)

Mean SD Mean SD

Anxious Depressed

5.0

4.0

5.2

3.6

Withdrawn Depressed

3.4

3.0

3.4

2.7

Internalizing

Somatic Complaints

2.8

2.8

3.1

2.8

Rule-Breaking Behavior

2.6**

2.6

1.9**

2.1

Externalizing

Aggressive Behavior

6.8

5.3

6.3

5.1

Internalizing

11.2

8.0

11.7

7.3

Composite Subscales

Externalizing

9.4**

7.2

8.1**

6.6

*p<.05, **p<.01

83

First, correlations of the APQ subscales were run against the Externalizing and

Internalizing subscales of the CBCL for both males and females (see Tables 9 and 10).

Regression analyses examining these same relationships were then run. The goal of both

analyses was to assess the strength of the relationship between parenting behaviors and

child outcomes as previously described.

Correlations: External Validity

In order to assess the external validity of the APQ and in part of the predictive

validity of the APQ, correlations were run on the subscales of the APQ and the

Externalizing and Internalizing groupings of the CBCL with separate analyses for males

and females. The analyses were run separately for males and females given that there is

usually a significant difference between genders in externalizing and internalizing

behaviors with males exhibiting higher levels of externalizing behaviors and females

higher levels of internalizing behaviors and to increase the sensitivity of detecting any

differences between parenting and outcomes based on gender.

The results of correlations for males demonstrate statistically significant

correlations for all APQ subscales with both externalizing and internalizing behaviors at

the p<.01 level. As would be expected, the positive subscales of the APQ correlated

negatively with both Externalizing and Internalizing whereas the negative subscales

correlated positively with externalizing and internalizing behaviors. The highest

correlations occurred with Poor Monitoring/Supervision and Inconsistent Discipline. In

these cases, those parents of boys that reported monitoring and supervising their children

less or providing inconsistent disciplinary practices were more likely to report higher

84

levels of externalizing behaviors (e.g., rule breaking, aggressive behavior) in these same

male children (see Table 9). Internalizing behaviors correlated most highly with Corporal

Punishment. Those parents that used physical means of punishment were more likely to

report depressive behavior or anxiety in their male children.

Table 9

Correlations of CBCL Internalizing (Int) and Externalizing (Ext) Scales to APQ

Subscales for Males

Males (N=415)

APQ Subscale/ CBCL Ex/In

CBCL

Externalizing

CBCL

Internalizing

Positive Parenting

-.264**

Neg correlation: High PP Low Ext

-.160**

Neg correlation: High PP/Low Int

Parental Involvement

-.293**

Neg correlation: High IN/ Low Ext

-.256**

Neg correlation: High IN/ Low Int

Corporal Punishment

.378**

Positive correlation: High CP/ High Ext

.293**

Positive correlation: High CP/ High Int

Poor Monitoring Supervision

.475**

Positive correlation: High PMS/ High Ext

.203**

Positive correlation: High PMS/ High Int

Inconsistent Discipline

.452**

Positive correlation: High ID/ High Ext

.249**

Positive correlation: High ID/ High Int

*p<.05, **p<.01

85

Similar results were found for parents of female children and the behaviors in

their children. All relationships with the exception of two were significant at the p<.01

level (see Table 10). One was significant at the p<.05 level (Parental Involvement

correlated with Internalizing) and one was not found to be significant (Positive Parenting

with Internalizing) although there was still a negative correlation, as would be expected.

The strongest correlation again occurred with Poor Monitoring/Supervision and

Inconsistent Discipline. Those parents who are inconsistent in their disciplinary practices

or are less likely to closely monitor their children are more likely to report externalizing

behaviors in their female children. Internalizing behaviors were also most likely to be

predicted by Inconsistent Discipline, a finding that is consistent with the male children as

well.

Overall, correlations were stronger with the male children versus the female

children with positive parenting practices more likely to predict lower levels of

internalizing and externalizing behaviors and negative parenting practices more likely to

predict the presence of these behaviors.

86

Table 10 Correlations of CBCL Internalizing and Externalizing Scales to APQ subscales for

Females

Females

(N=447)

APQ Subscale/CBCL Externalizing Internalizing

CBCL

Externalizing

CBCL

Internalizing

Positive Parenting

-.147**

Neg correlation: High PP/ Low ext

-.048

Neg correlation: High PP / Low int

Parental Involvement

-.172**

Neg correlation: High IN/ Low ext

-.118*

Neg correlation: High IN/ Low int

Corporal Punishment

.266**

Positive correlation: High CP/ High ext

.154**

Positive correlation: High CP/ High int

Poor Monitor Supervision

.335**

Positive correlation: PMS / High ext

.184**

Positive correlation: PMS/ High int

Inconsistent Discipline

.480**

Positive correlation: High ID/ High ext

.257**

Positive correlation: High ID/ High int

*p<.05, **p<.01

87

Regressions: External Validity

In addition to correlations with the CBCL, a regression analysis was run using the

subscales of the APQ as the independent variables and the internalizing and externalizing

groupings of the CBCL as the dependent variables. Again, data for male children and for

female children were run separately. The results show that regression equations for

parenting behaviors of male children and behavioral outcomes were significant (a) at the

p<.01 level for Corporal Punishment, Inconsistent Discipline and Poor

Monitoring/Supervision on Externalizing, (b) at the p<.05 levels for Parental

Involvement on Externalizing, and (c) at the p<.01 level for Corporal Punishment,

Parental Involvement and Inconsistent Discipline on Internalizing (see Table 11).

88

Table 11 Regressions for APQ Subscales onto Internalizing and Externalizing for Males

Males

(N=415)

Internalizing

Externalizing

B

SE

β

B

SE

β

Positive Parenting

.18

.15

.08

-.15

.12

-.07

Parental Involvement

-.43

.11

-.27**

-.18

.09

-.12*

Corporal Punishment

1.47

.37

.20**

1.22

.28

.18**

Poor Monitor Supervision

7.97E-02

.14

.03

.66

.11

.27**

Inconsistent Discipline

.42

.13

.17**

.65

.10

.29**

*p<.05, **p<.01

Similar to the data for male children, results for female children show that

regression equations were significant (a) at the p<.01 level for Corporal Punishment,

Inconsistent Discipline and Poor Monitoring/Supervision on Externalizing and (b) at the

p<.01 level for Corporal Punishment and Inconsistent Discipline on Internalizing (see

89

Table 12). Contrary to the males, Corporal Punishment did not predict internalizing

behaviors for the females and there was no significant relationship between Parental

Involvement and externalizing behaviors.

Table 12 Regressions for APQ Subscales onto Internalizing and Externalizing for Females

Females

(N=447)

Internalizing

Externalizing

B

SEB β

B

SEB

β

Positive Parenting

.18

.14

.08

-4.42E-02

.11

-.02

Parental Involvement

-.20

.09

-.14*

-.12

.07

-.09

Corporal Punishment

.69

.36

.09

.98

.28

.14**

Poor Monitor Supervision

.25

.15

.09

.39

.12

.15**

Inconsistent Discipline

.51

.12

.20**

.90

.10

.39**

*p<.05, **p<.01

90

Chapter V: Discussion

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: APQ Subscale Trends

It was anticipated that the Mexican samples would exhibit similar trends on the

APQ as compared to means for Dadds et al. (2003). Higher elevations were expected for

males than females on subscales Corporal Punishment and Positive Monitoring/

Supervision. Higher scores on Parental Involvement and Positive Parenting were

expected for females than for males. In comparison to the Australian sample, it was

cautiously anticipated that levels of Corporal Punishment would be higher in the Mexican

sample.

Although there is evidence to suggest that machista attitudes in a culture may lead

to more punitive parenting practices, the data collected do not indicate a marked

difference. Although the data should be viewed conservatively, given the challenges

involved with data collection and the fact that the data are based solely on mother report,

there is no evidence to suggest that parenting practices are more harsh or punitive in this

sample as compared to the comparison Australian sample.

One very interesting finding is that in the Mexican population there were

significant differences for the negative parenting subscales for boys as compared to girls

and higher scores on the positive subscales for females as compared to males. In

comparison to the Australian sample, the greatest difference occurred in the higher scores

on Poor Monitoring/Supervision in the Mexican sample as compared to the Australian

sample. Also, Parental Involvement was significantly higher for females versus males in

91

the Mexican sample as compared to the Australian sample. The one similarity with the

Australian sample is that Corporal Punishment is also higher for males than females.

These clear differences between genders on the subscales may be indicative of a

difference in gender roles in parenting with Mexican families giving more positive

attention to the female children and harsher parenting, less supervision and more

inconsistent discipline to the male children. This is consistent with the culturally and

socially constructed belief that females are to be prepared as homemakers and boys to be

prepared for the street (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007).

When interpreting scores on the APQ from Latino or other immigrant

communities, and using normed samples or results from the mainstream culture as the

basis of comparison, it is necessary to exercise caution, particularly when maintaining a

feminist stance in analyzing the data which asks for a suspension of assumptions. Again,

this is particularly true when examining elevations on subscales in males versus females,

as the broader sociocultural context must be taken into consideration when interpreting

why elevations may have occurred, or why one gender scored higher than another on a

particular subscale.

Hypothesis 2: The factor structure

Overall, the factor analysis conducted supports the use of the APQ in Mexican

populations with a few minor observances regarding the loading of items onto subscales.

It was anticipated that the factor structure of the APQ would be similar to the

original structure determined by the authors and confirmed by subsequent analyses of the

factor structure. Indeed, the factor analysis showed a very similar structure as that

92

determined by the author of the instrument. Overall, the most encouraging aspect of this

finding is that all items anticipated to load on the positive subscales did so. However, as

with previous studies of the APQ, findings suggest that the two positive subscales,

Positive Parenting and Parental Involvement, have limited discriminative ability in terms

of these two constructs. Further instrument development should examine these two

subscales closely along with the items that tend to have multi-colinearity.

On the negative subscales, the fact that item 3 “You threaten to punish them and

then do not do it” loaded onto Poor Monitoring/Supervision rather than Inconsistent

Discipline is also not an astounding finding and it is unlikely that this is related to cultural

differences. It is likely that those families who are not monitoring their children closely

are also not responding consistently with disciplinary practices.

The finding that item 32 “Your child is at home without adult supervision” falls in

Corporal Punishment is an interesting finding and may relate to cultural differences. In

could be hypothesized that leaving a child without supervision has a different cultural

meaning within the Mexican community and that parents who engage in corporal

punishment are also more likely to leave children unattended. It may also be

hypothesized that leaving a child unattended, especially a child of 11 or 12 years old, is

more of a normative finding within this Mexican community. Leaving a child unattended

also could be related to higher levels of poverty in family systems where childcare is not

easily available or affordable.

Interestingly, the same item that addresses leaving a child at home without

supervision is the only item that could potentially increase the alpha coefficient and, thus,

93

improve internal consistency if removed from the subscale in which it appears. Over-

interpretation of the items misplacement may not be necessary if the item did not strongly

fit in the Corporal Punishment subscale. Further investigation of the meaning associated

with this item may lead to better results when applied to a Spanish-speaking population.

From a theoretical perspective, this finding is of utmost importance, as the

behavior of leaving a child home alone may well be explained through a culturally

embedded behavior or practice. The feminist or social constructionist perspective allows

for greater interpretation or exploration of the finding rather than a blanket assumption

based on a comparison to other cultures. With this particular item, it would be especially

important to do a more in-depth examination of cultural practices around leaving children

at home alone, rather than making assumptions based on a Euro-American understanding

of this behavior.

Hypothesis 3: Internal Validity

It was hypothesized that positive subscales (Positive Parenting, Parental

Involvement) on the APQ would correlate highly with each other and negatively with

negative subscales (Corporal Punishment, Poor Monitoring/Supervision, Inconsistent

Discipline). It was also predicted that negative subscales would correlate highly with

each other.

Indeed, according to the correlations, the internal validity of the APQ was shown

to be very good. Positive subscales correlated highly with each other and negative

subscales correlated highly with each other. Negative and positive subscales correlated

negative with each other, as expected. Combined with the factor analysis grouping the

94

individual items into appropriate subscales, this finding demonstrates that the APQ is

generally measuring what it purports to measure.

Hypothesis 4: External Validity

Correlations: In was anticipated that in a measure of external predictive validity,

positive subscales on the APQ would correlate negatively with scores of externalizing

and internalizing behaviors on the CBCL and that negative subscales on the APQ would

correlate positively with scores of externalizing and internalizing behaviors on the CBCL.

In fact, for the male children the positive subscales all correlated negatively and

significantly with Externalizing, as did they with Internalizing. The negative APQ

subscales also all correlated highly with Externalizing and with Internalizing as well.

Both of these findings demonstrate good external and predictive validity. Correlations

were consistently less strong for the female children, yet all were still statistically

significant with the exception of the Positive Parenting subscale on Internalizing.

It is important to maintain a holistic picture of these findings. First, it is known

that the mothers in this population reported engaging in more positive parenting practices

towards the female children than towards the male children. Male children were

monitored less, disciplined less consistently, and more likely to receive more corporal

punishment. At the same time, there are no significant differences between boys and girls

in terms of internalizing behaviors. Male children were definitely more likely to engage

in externalizing behaviors. The strength of the negative correlations among positive

parenting practices and externalizing/ internalizing behaviors with boys, or the positive

correlations among negative parenting practices and these same outcomes, as compared

95

to girls demonstrates that the boys in this population may respond more sensitively to the

parenting practices of their mothers.

A social constructionist understanding of this difference in how boys and girls are

parented differently is crucial at such junctures. Examining the data lends insight into

parenting practices and child behavior, but a further analysis may lend even more insight

into why female children are parented more positively than male children or why male

children paradoxically receive more corporal punishment. It would be important to

understand how such cultural practices have come to be and how future prevention and

intervention programs might address these differences sensitively.

Regressions: Similarly, the regression analysis also strengthens the external,

predictive validity of the measure. The regression analyses of parenting practices were (a)

better able to predict internalizing and externalizing behaviors in boys as opposed to girls,

(b) better able to predict externalizing behaviors over internalizing behaviors for both

boys and girls, and (c) better able to predict the effect of negative parenting practices on

internalizing and externalizing outcomes versus positive parenting practices.

General Summary of Findings

Validity of the APQ

In regard to the validity of the APQ when used with a Mexican population, the

data support the external and internal validity of the instrument and its use with this

community. Some instrument development is needed to differentiate between Positive

Parenting and Parental Involvement but this is a finding that applies to all populations

studied to date. In terms of external validity, the APQ successfully predicts externalizing

96

and internalizing behaviors in a Mexican population based on positive and negative

parenting practices. Again, the results should be interpreted within the social

constructionist perspective, which allows for the behaviors and values around parenting

to be viewed within this unique cultural framework and for all interpretations of the APQ

to be made with respect to the Mexican culture.

Harsh Parenting

The literature review shows us that a strong relationship exists between harsh

parenting and child outcomes. However, the hypothesis that a Mexican sample would

score higher on measures of corporal punishment was not supported. Given that the data

could not be compared directly, this statement is made cautiously. Working from an

assumption of higher levels of harsh parenting based solely on culture is certainly a pitfall

and one to be avoided without direct evidence to the contrary. The feminist perspective,

which calls for assumptions about parenting based on culture to be challenged, is

evidenced through this finding which contradicts previously held hypotheses about

corporal punishment in the Mexican community, at least within the current sample.

Gender Differences in Parenting Boys versus Girls

Overall, there is evidence to suggest that cultural differences occur on measures

of parenting practices in regard to how mothers may parent girls and boys differently and

that gender is indeed socially constructed within this community. In the current sample,

boys were the recipients of harsher, inconsistent discipline, and less monitoring and

supervision while females received more praise, positive attention, and supervision. This

finding is somewhat consistent with the cultural practice and belief of allowing boys

97

more freedom than girls. However, the fact that female children are recipients of more

positive attention from their parents was not addressed in the literature on Latino/a

parenting practices and should be examined from a cultural perspective, as discussed

previously.

These findings are crucial in our understanding of Latino/a families, as

monitoring and supervision and parental involvement have been shown to be two of the

most salient factors contributing to preventing antisocial behavior in youth. Within this

sample, as well as the Latino/a community at large, positive parenting practices of

females likely serves as a protective factor with female children while negative parenting

practices will likely lead to behavior problems among boys.

These findings are consistent with the idea that parenting practices and gender are

socially constructed concepts, as societal expectations of male versus female behavior

alter a parent’s behavior such that the parent can produce a socially desired outcome in

the child. Parenting then becomes a socially constructed practice as well. The feminist

lens in turn allows us as researchers to reconstruct our own notions about what it means

to be a parent and about how to interpret this data in light of culturally driven ideas about

parenting.

Limitations of the Study

The most obvious limitation in this study is the administration of the instrument

on a 4-point scale rather than a 5-point scale. This prevents an immediate comparison of

the data to other data that have been collected using the instruments. The other limitation

is the lack of educational data on the mother. Without these data it is difficult to get a

98

complete view of the SES level of the families as we are dependent on living conditions

and income as indicators of SES. In addition, the collection of data based on instruments

developed in a Euro-American culture is also a limitation. Items were not thoroughly

analyzed prior to the study to assess for cultural validity and therefore findings must be

interpreted cautiously.

Strengths of the Study

The most obvious strengths of this study are the large sample size and the

geographical and economic stratification in sample selection. This sample allows for a

thorough overview of a Mexican sample in a highly diverse and densely populated region

of Mexico. Additionally, the study was thorough in its collection of data, allowing for

many other future studies to examine variables that will provide a more detailed view of

Mexican families.

Future Research

With the current set of data there are multiple future directions for research.

Specifically, it would be of interest to look closely at how different variables relate to

parenting practices. For instance, how do factors such as SES or parental history of abuse

relate to APQ subscales? One more controversial view of harsh parenting is that more

authoritarian or controlling behavior leads to better outcomes when raising children in a

high-risk environment, such as a low-income neighborhood with high levels of exposure

to violence or negative peer relationships (Luthar, 1999). In fact, some research suggests

that the use of physical punishment can moderate the effects of neighborhood problems

Eamon (2001). A close examination of SES in the current population might lend insight

99

into the relationship between SES and harsh parenting practices. Additionally, the

literature points to a relationship between mothers’ lack of control and increased punitive

parenting practices. A future study could utilize the wide range of demographic data to

hypothesize about mothers’ lack of control and her parenting practices in regards to

discipline.

Such analyses would provide an even clearer understanding of which factors

might serve a protective role in harsh parenting practices or negative child behavior and

which might serve as risk indicators for higher levels of corporal punishment. These same

variables may even play a role in how male versus female children are being raised. This

study is the first step of many towards developing a deeper understanding of parenting

practices in Mexico. The data collected in the original study include many other variables

such as mother’s history of physical and sexual abuse, income, employment, and SES.

Further analyses could be designed to examine how these various conditions or personal

histories impact one’s parenting practices.

Although the study here was of Latina mothers, the literature review and findings

highlight the importance of studying fathers. Even if this is not feasible, developing

intervention programs for Latino fathers is of particular importance. If monitoring and

supervising children is crucial in terms of preventing antisocial behaviors and male

children engage in these behaviors more frequently than boys, parenting intervention

programs for Latinos/as should consider specifically targeting fathers’ parenting

behaviors towards their male children as well.

100

Finally, it would be highly valuable to understand the levels of familismo and

adherence to traditional values of machismo and marianismo in the current sample, as the

literature demonstrates that one’s level of adherence to these values is associated with

one’s level of harsh parenting practices.

Gaining an understanding of such cultural beliefs and values like familismo or

machismo and participants’ beliefs about parenting, all of which involve more complex

aspects of parenting directly related to one’s culture, might be better studied through the

incorporation of qualitative methods. In addition, one might use a qualitative component

to more closely assess the cultural validity of an instrument at the item level. For

instance, in addition to administering an instrument such as the APQ, one might select a

smaller sample from the larger sample, and ask these participants to explain their

understanding of the items or to elaborate on why they answered the questions as they

did. By designing a mixed-methods study, the research would both collect quantitative

data that would enrich one’s understanding of the communities’ status and needs on an

epidemiological level, and would be better able to assess how the instruments might be

better adapted to the particular community being studied. By gathering this type of

information, one could more closely assess the cultural relevance of the instruments and

simultaneously develop a deeper understand of cultural practices related to the variables

under examination.

Common to all of these potential roads for future analyses is the development of

theories and understandings about Mexican families based on a cultural and ecological

framework and the framing of these behaviors within a feminist and social constructionist

101

perspective. The current study has demonstrated that parenting practices are rooted in

multiple variables, many of which are either influenced by geographical and regional

influences, such as economic wealth and opportunity, or by deeply engrained cultural

values. One must keep this paradigm in the forefront of one’s awareness when applying

concepts developed in a Euro-American culture to families from other cultures.

Clinical Implications

An instrument like the APQ readily provides practitioners, such as marriage and

family therapists, social workers, psychologists or child protection workers, with

information about current behaviors occurring within the family. However, at times these

measures of parenting practices are not designed to be culturally specific and the

behaviors being measured may or may not mesh with those of the mainstream culture.

Approaching the instrument from a mainstream cultural perspective, or imposing a Euro-

American value system onto someone from a different cultural background, may lead to

negative consequences in the practitioner/client relationship such as resistance,

alienation, or a failure to join.

The results from the current study highlight the fact that in the Latino community

boys are parented differently from girls in terms of punishment, supervision, and negative

versus positive parenting practices. Hence, in addition to administering a measure such as

the APQ, one is encouraged to talk with the parent or parents about his or her beliefs

regarding parenting and gender roles within the family. This finding could be a

contributing factor to social issues seen within Mexican immigrant groups in the U.S.

Furthermore, by keeping the findings of the present study in mind while interpreting the

102

instrument or developing treatment plans, a more successful relationship with the client

could potentially develop. The social constructionist approach to therapeutic practices in

integrating culture and behavior can be implemented on this level as well. Prevention or

intervention programs could highlight the notion that parenting practices are a product of

one’s culture and could bring this awareness to the clients as part of the therapeutic

process of insight-based change (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998).

The information gleaned from this study thus highlights the need to remain aware

of the culture from which an individual presenting for services comes and to remain

aware of sociocultural and ecological differences that may be reflected in such measures

of parenting behaviors. Interpretation of instruments such as the APQ must be conducted

from a cultural perspective while keeping in mind that parenting differences exist

between the Latino community and mainstream Euro-American communities.

Summary

The feminist notion that assumptions regarding parenting practices must be

challenged is successfully carried out in the present study. At the same time the social

construction of parenting and gender, as well as the cultural and ecological factors

contributing to parenting practices, are closely examined. Preconceived notions regarding

higher levels of corporal punishment were not supported, yet interesting differences

revealed themselves in terms of male versus female children. We learned that boys are

treated more harshly than girls yet are given more leeway – an interesting paradox that

warrants further investigation. These concrete pieces of information may be highly useful

when working with Mexican-American immigrant groups or when developing programs

103

to better the lives of children through intervention with parents. Hopefully, by engaging

in these complex concepts from a feminist prospective, a deeper and more open

understanding of the various cultural practices in Mexico will result, specifically in

regards to children and child-rearing practices.

Despite the progress made in the current study, the ideas and understandings of

parenting practices in Mexico are only beginning to emerge, especially given that the

world is changing on a daily basis. Ideas regarding gender and gender roles are changing

as this is being written, and the next generation of parents may hold very different ideas

about parenting than the current generation. Nonetheless, the data, ideas, and efforts put

forth are useful. The Mexican population is growing rapidly in the U.S. and the future of

Latino/a youth in this country historically has held a less than ideal outlook with poor

outcomes for youth. The development of culturally appropriate intervention and

prevention programs for Latino/a families is central to quality services and, according to

the present data, addressing the culturally entrenched gender divide in terms of parenting

practices of boys versus girls might be one important place for developers of programs to

put their efforts. Regardless of where we start, however, we as practitioners and

researchers in fields such as family science must strive to make the best use of the

information at hand and to position ourselves such that we make a difference in the lives

and futures of Latino/a children through prevention, intervention, and policy reform.

104

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/ 4-18 and 1991 Profile

and revised child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,

Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Latino Spanish version of the CBCL. Burlington, VT: Research

Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

Achenbach, T. M., & McConaughy, S. H. (1987). Empirically based assessment of child

and adolescent psychopathology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aguilar, E., & Odios, S. (2008). Estilos de Educación y Crianza en las Familias de

Nuevo León [Child-rearing in the families of Nuevo León]. [Unpublished Report].

Monterrey, MX: Centro de Investigacion Familiar A.C.

APA. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Text

revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Barudy, J. (1998). El dolor invisible de la infancia. [The invisible pain of childhood].

Barcelona: Ediciones Paidos Iberica.

Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 413-434.

Brodsky, A. E., & DeVet, K. A. (2000). You have to be real strong: Parenting goals and

strategies of resilient, urban, African American, single mothers. Journal of

Prevention & Intervention in the Community 20(1-2), 159-178.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.

American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

105

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MN:

Harvard University Press.

Bulcroft, R. A., Carmody, D. C., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1996). Patterns of parental

independence giving to adolescents: Variations by race, age, and gender of child.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 866-883.

Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating chronic juvenile offenders: Advances made through the

Oregon multidimensional treatment foster care model. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Chamberlain, P., Price, J., Leve, L. D., Laurent, H., Landsverk, J. A., & Reid, J. B.

(2008). Prevention of behavior problems for children in foster care: Outcomes and

mediation effects. Prevention Science, 9, 17-27.

Chao, R. & Kanatsu, A. (2008). Beyond socioeconomics: Explaining ethnic group

differences in parenting through cultural and immigration processes. Applied

Developmental Science, 12(4), 181-187.

Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1997). Transactional ecological systems in developmental

psychopathology. In S. S. Luthar, J. A. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. R. Weisz (Eds).

Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder

(pp. 317-349). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Capaldi, D. M., Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). Ineffective discipline and

conduct problems in males: Association, late adolescent outcomes, and

prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(4), 343-353.

106

Clerkin, S. M., Marks, D. J., Policaro, K. L., & Halperin, J. M. (2007). Psychometric

properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-Preschool Revision. Journal

of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(1), 19-28.

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L.

B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early

adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.

Coohey, C. (2001). The relationship between familism and child maltreatment in Latino

and Anglo families. Child Maltreatment, 6(2), 130-142.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Frias-Armenta, M., Romero, M., & Munoz, A. (1995). Validity of a

scale measuring beliefs regarding the "positive" effects of punishing children: A

study of Mexican mothers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(6), 669-679.

Cunningham, C. E., & Boyle, M. H. (2002). Preschoolers at risk for attention-deficit

hyperactivity or oppositional defiant disorder: Family, parenting, and behavioral

correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 555-569.

Dadds, M. R. (1995). Families, children, and the development of dysfunction. New York,

NY: Sage.

Dadds, M., Maujean, A., & Fraser, J. A. (2003). Parenting and conduct problems in

children: Australian data and psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting

Questionnaire. Australian Psychologist, 38(3), 238-241.

107

De Reus, L. A., Few, A. L., & Blume, L. B. (2005). Multicultural and critical race

feminisms: Theorizing families in the third wave. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock,

K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds). Sourcebook of family

theory and research (pp. 447-465). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and

discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and

gender. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 161-175.

Deyoung, Y., & Zigler, E. F. (1994). Machismo in two cultures: Relation to punitive

child-rearing practices. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 386-397.

Driscoll, A. K Russell, S. T; & Crockett, L. J. (2008). Parenting styles and youth well-

being across immigrant generations. Journal of Family Issues, 29(2), 185-209.

Eamon, M. (2001). Poverty, parenting, peer, and neighborhood influences on young

adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Social Service Research, 28, 1-23.

Eamon, M. K., & Mulder, C. (2005). Predicting antisocial behavior among Latino young

adolescents: An ecological systems analysis. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 75, 117-127.

Elgar, F., Waschbusch, D., Dadds, M., & Sigvaldason, N. (2007). Development and

validation of a short form of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 16(2), 243-259.

108

Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Psychometric properties of the

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(5),

597-616.

Ferrari, A. M. (2002). The impact of culture upon child rearing practices and definitions

of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(8), 793-813.

Fontes, L. (2002). Child discipline and physical abuse in immigrant Latino families:

Reducing violence and misunderstandings. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 80(1), 31–40.

Ford, J. D., Racusin, R., Ellis, C. G., Daviss, W. B., Reiser, J., Fleischer, A., & Thomas,

J. (2000). Child maltreatment, other trauma exposure and posttraumatic

symptomatology among children with oppositional defiant and attention deficit

hyperactivity disorders. Child Maltreatment, 5(3), 205-217.

Fossum, S., Morch, W. T., Handegard, B. H., Drugli, M. B. (2007). Childhood disruptive

behaviors and family functioning in clinically referred children: Are girls different

from boys? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 375-382.

Frías, M., & Sales, B. (1997). Discretion in the enforcement of child protection laws in

Mexico. California Western Law Review, 34, 203-224.

Frias-Armenta, M. (2002). Long-term effects of child punishment on Mexican women: A

structural model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(4), 371-386.

Frias-Armenta, M., & McCloskey, L. A. (1998). Determinants of harsh parenting in

Mexico. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 129-139.

109

Frias-Armenta, M., Sotomayor-Petterson, M., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Castell-Ruiz, I.

(2004). Parental styles and harsh parenting in a sample of Mexican women: A

structural model. International Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 61-72.

Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama parenting questionnaire. Birmingham, AL: University

of Alabama.

Fry (1993). The intergenerational transmission of disciplinary practices and approaches

to conflict. Human Organization, 52, 176-185.

Frye, A. A., & Garber, J. (2005). The relations among maternal depression, maternal

criticism, and adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 1-11.

George, G., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference. 11.0 Update (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note:

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581-586.

Gross, D., Fogg, L., Young, M., Ridge, A., Cowell, J. M., Richardson, R., & Sivan, A.

(2006). The equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist/1 1/2-5 across parent

race/ethnicity, income level, and language. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 313-

323.

110

Grych, J. H., Jouriles, E. N., Swank, P. R., McDonald, R., & Norwood, W. D. (2000).

Patterns of adjustment among children of battered women. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 68, 84-94.

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N.

(2007). Parenting practices among Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. Social

Work, 52(1), 17-30.

Hinshaw, S. P., Owens, E. B., Wells, K. C., Kraemer, H. C., Abikoff, H. B., & Arnold, L.

et al. (2000). Family processes and treatment outcome in the MTA:

Negative/Ineffective parenting practices in relation to multimodal treatment.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 555–568.

Ingoldsby, B. (1991). The Latin American family: Familism vs. machismo. Journal of

Comparative Family Studies 22, 57–61.

Jackson, A. P. (2000). Maternal self-efficacy and children’s influence on stress and

parenting among single black mothers in poverty. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 3-

16.

Kirby, L. D., & Fraser, M. W. (1997). Risk and resiliency in childhood. In M. W. Fraser,

(Ed.), Risk and Resiliency (pp. 10-33). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Kotchick, B. A., & Forehand, R. (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of

the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family

Studies, 11(3), 255-269.

111

Lahey, B. B., Walkdman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). Annotation: The development

of antisocial behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 40, 669-682.

Le, H., & Lambert, S. F. (2008). Culture, context, and maternal self-efficacy in Latina

mothers. Applied Developmental Science 12(4), 198-201.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors

of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Torrey & N. Morris (Eds.),

Crime and justice (Vol. 7., pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mathias, J. L., Mertin, P., & Murray, A. (1995). The psychological functioning of

children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Australian Psychology, 30, 47–

56.

McCabe, K. M., Goehring, K., Yeh, M., & Lau, A. S. (2008). Parental locus of control

and externalizing behavior problems among Mexican American preschoolers.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(2), 118-126.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1998). Family therapy: Concepts and methods.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nichols-Anderson, C. L. (2001). The effects of parental practices and acculturation upon

sexual risk taking among Latino adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International

61 (9-B), 4998.

112

Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist Theories: The social construction of

gender in families and society. In: Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A

contextual approach (pp. 591-625). P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.

Schumm, & S. Steinmetz. (Eds). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Patterson, G. R, & Capaldi, D. M. (1991). Antisocial parents: Unskilled and vulnerable.

In P. A. Cowan & E. M. Hetherington, (Eds.), Family Transitions (pp. 195-218).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model

of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253-267.

Patterson, G., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia

Publishing Co.

Peterson, A. L. (2006). Comorbidity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and gender

with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Dissertation Abstracts

International. 67 (3-B), 1713.

Roberts, M. W. (2001). Clinic observations of structured parent-child interaction

designed to evaluate externalizing disorders. Psychological Assessment, 13, 46-

58.

Roche, K. M; Ensminger, M. E; Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Variations in parenting and

adolescent outcomes among African American and Latino families living in low-

income, urban areas. Journal of Family Issues, 28(7), 882-909.

113

Rodriguez-Flores, A., & DeVaney, S. A. (2006). Amount and sources of income of older

households in Mexico. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 17(1), 64-

72. Retrieved from www.afcpe.org/doc/vol1716.pdf

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Schreiner, M. (2006). A simple poverty scorecard for Mexico. Unpublished Manuscript.

Retrieved December 30, 2008, from http://microfinancegateway.org/files/

36273_file_scoring_poverty_Mexico.pdf

Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). The assessment of parenting practices

in families of elementary school-aged children. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 25, 317-327.

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1998). Harsh, firm, and permissive

parenting in low-income families: Relations to children’s academic achievement

and behavioral adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 483 - 507.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational

transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.

Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contributions of

ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the

development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental

Psychology 41(1), 30-41.

114

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N. Y., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-

time changes in adjustment among adolescent from authoritative, authoritarian,

indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

Straus, M. (1991).Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence

and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-154.

United Nations. (2002). World population prospects: The 2000 revision. New York, NY:

United Nations.

Wells, K. C., Epstein, J. N., Hinshaw, S. P., Conners, C. K., Klaric, J., & Abikoff, H. B.

et al. (2000). Parenting and family stress treatment outcomes in attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An empirical analysis in the MTA study. Journal

of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 543-553.

World Bank. (2005). Mexico: Income generation and social protection for the poor.

Washington, DC: World Bank.

Zayas, L.H. (1992). Childrearing, social stress and child abuse: Clinical considerations

with Hispanic families. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 1, 291-309.

Zayas, L., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families:

Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 25(3), 200–206.

115

Appendix 1

Map of Mexico with Nuevo León highlighted

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuevo_Le%C3%B3n)

116

Appendix 2

Detail Map of Nuevo León, Mexico (http://vsalgs.org/stnemgenealogy/nlmap.htm)

117

Appendix 3

Number of Students by Municipality and Percentage of the School Population this

Number Represents

Municipality

Percentage of the

school population

N

1 Abasolo 0.11% 1

2 Agualeguas 0.11% 1

3 Allende 1.07% 10

4 Anáhuac 0.43% 4

5 Apodaca 10.66% 100

6 Aramberri 0.43% 4

7 Bustamante 0.11% 1

8 Cadereyta Jiménez 2.24% 21

9 El Carmen 0.43% 4

10 Cerralvo 0.21% 2

11 China 0.32% 3

12 Ciénega de Flores 0.53% 5

13 Doctor Arroyo 1.07% 10

14 Doctor González 0.11% 1

15 Galeana 0.96% 9

16 García 1.49% 14

17 General Bravo 0.21% 2

18 General Escobedo 7.78% 73

19 General Terán 0.53% 5

20 General Zaragoza 0.21% 2

118

21 General Zuazua 0.32% 3

22 Guadalupe 13.97% 131

23 Hidalgo 0.32% 3

24 Higueras 0.11% 1

25 Hualahuises 0.21% 2

26 Iturbide 0.11% 1

27 Juárez 3.94% 37

28 Lampazos de Naranjo 0.21% 2

29 Linares 2.56% 24

30 Los Ramones 0.21% 2

31 Marín 0.21% 2

32 Mier y Noriega 0.21% 2

33 Mina 0.21% 2

34 Montemorelos 2.45% 23

35 Monterrey 21.00% 197

36 Pesquería 0.43% 4

37 Sabinas Hidalgo 0.96% 9

38 Salinas Victoria 1.07% 10

39 San Nicolás de los Garza 13.22% 124

40 San Pedro Garza García 2.88% 27

41 Santa Catarina 5.22% 49

42 Santiago 1.07% 10

43 Villaldama 0.11% 1

Total 100.00% 938

119

Appendix 4

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Parent Form. English Translation from Spanish;

Administered in the Present Study

Instructions: The following are a number of statements about your family. Please rate each item as to how often it TYPICALLY occurs in your home. The possible answers are Never (1), Almost (2), Very Often (3), Almost Always (4)

PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS.

Never Almost

Never Someti

mes Often

1 2 3 4 1. You have a friendly talk with your child.

2. You let your child know when he/she is doing a good job with something.

3. You threaten to punish your child and then do not actually punish him/her.

4. You volunteer to help with special activities that your child is involved in (such

as sports, boy/girl scouts, church youth groups).

5. You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying you or behaving

well.

6. Your child fails to leave a note or to let you know where he/she is going.

7. You play games or do other fun things with your child.

8. Your child talks you out of being punished after he/she has done something

wrong.

9. You ask your child about his/her day in school.

10. Your child stays out in the evening past the time he/she is supposed to be home.

11. You help your child with his/her homework.

12. You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth.

13. You compliment your child when he/she does something well.

120

14. You ask your child what his/her plans are for the coming day.

15. You drive your child to a special activity.

16. You praise your child if he/she behaves well.

17. Your child is out with friends you don’t know.

18. You hug or kiss your child when he/she has done something well.

19. Your child goes out without a set time to be home.

20. You talk to your child about his/her friends.

21. Your child is out after dark without an adult with him/her.

22. You let your child out of a punishment early (like lift restrictions earlier than

you originally said).

23. Your child helps plan family activities.

24. You get so busy that you forget where your child is and what he/she is doing.

25. Your child is not punished when he/she has done something wrong.

26. You attend PTA meetings, parent/teacher conferences, or other meetings at

your child’s school.

27. You tell your child that you like it when he/she helps around the house.

28. You don’t check that your child comes home at the time she/he was supposed

to.

29. You don’t tell your child where you are going.

30. Your child comes home from school more than an hour past the time you

expect him/her.

31. The punishment you give your child depends on your mood.

32. Your child is at home without adult supervision.

33. You spank your child with your hand when he/she has done something wrong.

34. You ignore your child when he/she is misbehaving.

35. You slap your child when he/she has done something wrong.

36. You take away privileges or money from your child as a punishment.

37. You send your child to his/her room as a punishment.

121

38. You hit your child with a belt, switch, or other object when he/she has done

something wrong.

39. You yell or scream at your child when he/she has done something wrong.

40. You calmly explain to your child why his/her behavior was wrong when he/she

misbehaves.

41. You use time out (make him/her sit or stand in a corner) as a punishment.

42. You give your child extra chores as a punishment.

122

Appendix 5

Original English-Version Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form

123

124

125

Appendix 6 Original Spanish-Version Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form

Cuestionario Alabama de Paternidad

Nunca No mucho Algunas veces

Frecuentemente

Siempre

1 Tiene una plática (conversación) amigable con su hijo. 2 Le dice a su hijo cuando él o ella está haciendo un buen trabajo con algo. 3 Amenaza a su hijo con que lo va a castigar, pero no lo castiga. 4 Se presta de voluntario para ayudar con actividades en las que su hijo está

envuelto (como deportes, niños escucha, grupos de niños de la iglesia). 5 Premia o le da cosas extras a su hijo por obedecerlo o por portarse bien. 6 Su hijo no le deja recado o no le deja saber a donde va. 7 Juega juegos divertidos o hace otras cosas divertidas con su hijo. 8 Su hijo le convence de que no lo castigue después de que ha hecho algo malo

o incorrecto. 9 Le pregunta a su hijo acerca de como estuvo su día en la escuela. 10 Su hijo se queda fuera de la casa en las noches pasada la hora de regresar a

casa. 11 Ayuda a su hijo con sus tareas escolares. 12 Se siente que el lograr que su hijo le obedezca es más problema del que desea

enfrentar. 13 Halaga a su hijo cuando hace algo bien. 14 Le pregunta a su hijo cuales son sus planes para el próximo día. 15 Lleva a su niño en auto a una actividad especial. 16 Halaga a su hijo si se porta bien. 17 Su hijo sale con amigos que usted no conoce. 18 Le da abrazos o besos a su hijo cuando hace algo bien hecho. 19 Su hijo sale sin tener hora fija para regresar. 20 Habla con su hijo acerca de sus amigos. 21 Su hijo está fuera de la casa al llegar la noche, sin compañía de un adulto. 22 Le quita castigos a su hijo antes de tiempo (o sea, lo deja salir más temprano

de lo que originalmente dijo). 23 Su hijo ayuda a planear actividades familiares. 24 Usted se pone tan ocupado que se le olvida donde está su hijo o qué está

hacienda. 25 Su hijo no recibe castigo cuando hace algo malo o incorrecto. 26 Asiste a reuniones de la asociación de padres y maestros (PTA), conferencias

de padres, u otras reuniones en la escuela de su hijo. 27 Usted le dice a su hijo que le gusta cuando él o ella ayuda en la casa.

126

28 Usted no chequea que su hijo haya llegado a casa cuando se supone que

llegue. 29 Usted no le dice a su hijo a donde va. 30 Su hijo llega a casa de la escuela más de una hora después de lo que usted

espera. 31 El castigo que le da a su hijo depende de su estado de ánimo. 32 Su hijo está en la casa sin supervisión de un adulto. 33 Le da nalgadas con la mano a su hijo cuando ha hecho algo malo o incorrecto. 34 Ignora a su hijo cuando se está portando mal. 35 Le da cachetadas a su hijo cuando ha hecho algo malo o incorrecto. 36 Le quita privilegios o dinero a su hijo como castigo. 37 Manda a su hijo a su cuarto como castigo. 38 Le pega a su hijo con un cinto (cinturón, correa), u otro objeto cuando él o ella

ha hecho algo malo o incorrecto. 39 Le grita a su hijo cuando él o ella ha hecho algo malo o incorrecto. 40 Calmadamente le explica a su hijo por que su comportamiento está mal

cuando él o ella se porta mal. 41 Usa el “tiempo fuera” (se sienta o para en la esquina) como un castigo. 42 Le da a su hijo quehaceres adicionales como castigo.

127

Appendix 7

Summary of Factor Loadings for Five-Factor Solution for the APQ on 4-Point Scale

Factor Loading

Item 1 2 3 4 5

28R You (don’t) check that your child comes home at the time she/he was supposed to

-.707

29R You (don’t) tell your child where you are going

-.691

27. You tell your child you like it when he/she helps out around the house

.614

13. You compliment your child when he/she has done something well

.581

26. You attend meetings at child’s school (PTA, conferences, etc)

.572

2. You tell your child that they are doing a good job

.530

16. You praise your child for behaving well .521

20. You talk to your child about his/her friends

.494

18. You hug or kiss your child when he/she has done something well

.453

1. You have a friendly talk with your child .450

15. You drive your child to a special activity (sports/scouts/church groups)

.437

23. Your child helps plan family activities .425

9. Your ask your child about his/her day in school

.401

7. You play games or do other fun things with your child

.607

128

15. You drive your child to a special activity

.568

11. You help your child with his/her homework

.560

5. You reward or give your child something extra for obeying you or behaving well

.531

14. You ask your child what his/her plans are for the coming day

.513

6. Your child fails to leave a note or to let you know where he is going

.608

10. Your child stays out in the evening past the time he/she is supposed to be home.

.589

17. Your child is out with friends you don’t know

.551

30. Child comes home from school more than an hour past the time you expect him/her

.492

12. You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth

.465

19. Your child goes out without a set time to be home

.451

21. Your child goes out after dark without an adult with him/her

.425

24. You get so busy you forget where child is and what he or she is doing

.316

22. You let your child out of a punishment early (lift restrictions earlier than you originally said)

.653

3. You threaten to punish them and then do not

.603

25. Your child is not punished when he/she has done something wrong

.486

129

31. The punishment you give your child depends on your mood

.481

8. Your child talks you out of punishment after doing something wrong

.464

38. You hit child with belt, switch or other object when she has done something wrong

.730

35. You slap your child when he/she has done something wrong

.537

33. You spank your child with your hand when he has done something wrong

.516

32. Your child is at home without adult supervision

.363

130

Appendix 8 Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form: Scale Composition, Present Study I. Involvement 1. You have a friendly talk with your child. 2. You let your child know when he/she is doing a good job with something. 4. You volunteer to help with special activities that your child is involved in (such as

sports, boy/girl scouts, church youth groups). 7. You play games or do other fun things with your child. 9. You ask your child about his/her day in school. 13. You compliment your child when he/she does something well. 16. You praise your child if he/she behaves well. 18. You hug or kiss your child when he/she has done something well. 20. You talk to your child about his/her friends. 23. Your child helps plan family activities. 26. You attend PTA meetings, parent/teacher conferences, or other meetings at child’s school. 27. You tell your child that you like it when he/she helps around the house. II. Positive Parenting 5. You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying you or behaving

well. 11. You help your child with his/her homework. 14. You ask your child what his/her plans are for the coming day. 15. You drive your child to a special activity.

131

III. Poor Monitoring & Supervision 6. Your child fails to leave a note or let you know where he or she is going. 10. Your child stays out in the evening past the time he/she is supposed to be home. 12. You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth. 17. Your child is out with friends you do not know. 19. Your child goes out without a set time to be home. 21. Your child is out after dark without an adult with him/her. 24. You get so busy that you forget where your child is and what he or she is doing. 30. Your child comes home from school more than an hour past the time you expect

him/her. IV. Inconsistent Discipline 3. You threaten to punish your child and then do not actually punish him/her. 8. Your child talks you out of being punished after he/she has done something wrong. 22. You let your child out of a punishment early (like lift restrictions earlier than you originally said). 25. Your child is not punished when he/she has done something wrong. 31. The punishment you give your child depends on your mood. V. Corporal Punishment 32. Your child is at home without adult supervision. 33. You spank your child with your hand when he/she has done something wrong. 35. You slap your child when he/she has done something wrong. 38. You hit your child with a belt, switch, or other object when he/she has done something wrong.

132

VI. Other Discipline 34. You ignore your child when he/she is misbehaving. 36. You take away privileges or money from your child as a punishment. 37. You send your child to his/her room as a punishment. 39. You yell or scream at your child when he/she has done something wrong. 40. You calmly explain to your child why his/her behavior was wrong when he/she misbehaves. 41. You use time out (make him/her sit or stand in a corner) as a punishment. 42. You give your child extra chores as a punishment.

133

Appendix 9 Alabama Parenting Questionnaire, Parent Form: Original Scale Composition I. Involvement 1. You have a friendly talk with your child. 4. You volunteer to help with special activities that your child is involved in (e.g., Sports, Boy/ Girl Scouts, church youth groups). 7. You play fun games with your child or do other fun things with your child. 9. You ask you child about his or her day in school. 11. You help your child with his or her homework. 14. You ask your child what his or her plans are for the coming day. 15. You drive your car to a special activity. 20. You talk to your child about his or her friends. 23. Your child helps plan family activities. 26. You attend PTA meetings, parent teacher conferences, or other meetings at your child’s school. II. Positive Parenting 2. You let your child know when he or she is doing a good job with something. 5. You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying you or behaving well. 13. You compliment your child when he or she does something well. 16. You praise your child if he or she behaves well. 18. You hug or kiss your child when he or she has done something well. 27. You tell your child that you like it when he or she helps out around the house.

134

III. Poor Monitoring/ Supervision Your child fails to leave a note or to let you know where he or she is going. Your child stays out in the evening past the time he or she is supposed to be home. Your child is out with friends you do not know. 19. Your child goes out without a set time to be home. 21. Your child is out after dark without an adult with him or her. 24. You get so busy you forget where your child is and what he or she is doing. 28. You don’t check when your child comes home from school when he or she is supposed to. 29. You don’t tell your child where you are going. 30. Your child comes home from school more than an hour past the time you expect him or her to. 32. Your child is at home without adult supervision. IV. Inconsistent Discipline 3. You threatened to punish your child and then do not actually punish him or her. 8. Your child talks you out of being punished after he or she has done something wrong. 12. You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than it’s worth. 22. You let your child out of punishment early ( e.g. lift restrictions earlier than you originally said.) 25. Your child is not punished when he or she has done something wrong. 31. The punishment you give your child depends on your mood. V. Corporal Punishment 33. You spank your child with your hand when he or she has done something wrong. 35. You slap your child when he or she has done something wrong. 38. You hit your child with a belt, switch, or other object when he or she has done something wrong.

135

VI. Other Discipline Practices 34. You ignore your child when he or she is misbehaving. 36. You take away privileges or money from your child as a punishment. 37. You send your child to his or her room as a punishment. 39. You yell or scream at your child when he or she has done something wrong. 40. You calmly explain to your child why his behavior is wrong when he or she misbehaves. 41. You use time out (make him or her sit or stand in corner) as a punishment. You give your child extra chores as a punishment.

136

Appendix 10

Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18, Parent Report, English Version

137

138

139

140

Appendix 11: Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18, Parent Report, Spanish Translation

141

142

143